Have a nice time, marching in support of a bloody dictator?
And you may recall, we had a, ahem, foreign policy impediment in this country between 1993 and 2000. Don’t blame that on GW.
Damn it Tar Tarkas, you just made me choke on my tea. “shut your fucking lie-hole,” fucking hilarious. 
In support of those who oppose homogenizing anti-war protesters:
As a member of that rather amorphous mass known as “the left,” i always find it quite amusing when we are all lumped together under a single epithet. Any one with even the slightest knowledge of American (and not just American, for that matter) history surely knows that “the left” is, and has nearly always been, beset by internal disagreement, factional fighting, political opportunism, etc., etc. One of the more unfortunate aspects of being on the left (and even liberal) end of the political spectrum is that we are often so busy bickering at one another that we forget to mount any serious challenge to conservatives. Exhibit One: 2000 Presidential Election.
If i’m encouraged by any one thing in this whole debate over the war in Iraq, it’s that many liberal and left groups seem finally able to rally around something that they share a belief in, even if we don’t always agree about the specifics. I’m also encouraged that there seem, from my experience at least, to be quite a few people who identify as conservatives (or at least not as liberals/leftists) who also oppose the war. My own parents fall into this category.
Wabbit, while that CNN observation may in fact be true, i submit that if Saddam’s “gloating” over the protests is used as a further excuse to go to war, then it will be the most morally bankrupt excuse that the Administration has yet offered - quite a feat, in my opinion. Because, while his gloating may be unbecoming, and while it may fail completely to reflect the real reasons behind the protests (i have yet to meet an anti-war protester who likes and supports Saddam Hussein), it is nothing but words. Saddam’s opportunistic propaganda-peddling should play no part in the decision regarding war.
I realise that i have neglected to address the issue raise in the OP. Madkins’s assertion that people should uncritically support their government suggests that he or she might, in fact, be happier in Iraq, where the current government is in full agreement with such a policy.
Damn it Tar Tarkas, you just made me choke on my tea. “shut your fucking lie-hole,” fucking hilarious.
Pal, you just argued that the Iraqi people are in favor of getting bombed to hell. Please don’t forget to collect your Idiot Hat on your way out.
I cannot believe that you’re still telling Tars why he was marching. You are a total and complete fool, and I mean that seriously.
Listen you fucking asshat, the only person bombing the Iraqi people to hell is S.Hussien. I am just about fed-up with the sickening distortions and lies that the Friends of Saddam are using in their efforts to keep him in power.
Couldn’t stop you from marching for war, lazy butt. (oh, wait, that would require actual effort and thinking, instead of sheeping along)
Also waiting for your calls for invasions of Iran, North Korea, China, Half of Africa, and Pakistan to “protect the people.” No one beleives your lies, try another line.
And I am just about fed-up with the sickening distortions and lies that the Friends of Bush are using in their efforts to keep him in war-monger-mode.
I agree mhendo, I don’t doubt that both sides (Saddam and GWB) will probably make as much propaganda out of these events as they possibly can. I guess my point is that it’s as important how you protest as why you protest. For example (and I’m not equating the anti-war movement with this type of behavior, just using it to illustrate my point), the people protesting the IMF by tossing firebombs and rioting essentially handed those who support global big business a victory. If you protest this war without offering a viable alternative (the Franco-German plan, for example) then you’re essentially giving both Saddam and Bush exactly what they want. Like I said, there are ways to achieve this but I don’t see the anti-war movement doing this or, if they are doing it, I don’t see their message getting across to the general public. I guess I should also say that I honestly think a war to oust Saddam would be a good thing but the way in which he’s ousted (i.e. through UN sanctioned action) is even more important than his actual ouster. It’s just a pity that no one appears to be worried about the actual mechanics of achieving their ends. The result is, sadly, much heat and little light.
You are a simple-minded fool. Iraq is Iraq. It is not North Korea, China, Half of Africa, or Pakistan. Military intervention in Iraq will be quick and relatively easy. While in your world, every problem may have the same solution, in the real world, that is decidely not so.
Tell you what, when Iraq is freed from the Baathist regime, why don’t you and your Saddam-loving buddies go over there, and tell the people, to their face, that they should have lived under Saddams rule for a good while longer. In the name of peace, of course!
Anti-war (which in my case is anti-killing) opinions do not equal support of military dictatorship or support of fundamentalist regimes. How is it that people are having such a hard time understanding such a simple concept? Is it because people unable to understand this are so convinced of the rightness (or should I say righteousness?)of their own opinions that they can’t believe that anybody could have a valid opinion that does not echo their own?
You’re a simple minded tool. Just because last time lasted a few days doesn’t mean this time will. You talk of the real world, but you seem to be referring to reruns of cnn tapes from the Gulf War.
Back then, i was in Jr. High, and was opposed to stopping halfway then. But good old Bush 1 pussed out, so now we got the sequal, Episode 2, attack of the Shrubs!
Why don’t you and your “real world” chowderheads go to North Korea, China, Half of Africa, and Pakistan and tell them “gee, gollly, sorry, you must keep being oppressed because we only pick on weenie nations”
Regime change starts at home.
(my post directed at Brutus, of course.)
I certainly agree with you regarding the IMF protesters who resorted to violence. I only have two observations to add on that particular issue:
a) while i oppose violence, what i found just as troubling was the media’s tendency to report the story as if these violent protesters constituted a majority of those who were marching.
b) in some cases, law enforcement people made their own contribution to the violence, often while the crowds were still acting peacefully.
On the issue of opposing the war, i’m not quite sure if i follow your logic. When you say that anti-war people need to make a case for a viable alternative, do you mean that every individual has to come up with his or her own carefully detailed plan? I mean, isn’t it enough for me, as an anti-war protester, to say “I agree with the Franco-German plan,” or, “I support continued UN inspections, and i believe that the US should defer to UN judgement on this issue”?
While i read quite a lot about what’s going on in this issue, in both the “mainstream” and “alternative” press, i make no claim to omniscience. I realize that i don’t have all the information, and i concede that my knowledge of things like Iraq’s internal political schisms is inadequate for me to make my own in-depth analysis of what a post-Saddam Iraq might look like. But surely this does not disqualify me from doing my best to evaluate the various (and often contradictory) sources of information that i have on the Iraqi issue, and forming my own opinion based on this evaluation.
In a complex modern society, we can’t all be experts about everything. A key aspect of modern life, it seems to me, is our need to constantly evaluate, in terms of our own beliefs and priorities, the advice given to us by experts. And this happens on many levels, whether it’s an issue of foreign policy and global power (as in the Iraq case), or something much more mundane like choosing between two mechanics’ quotes for fixing our car. When competing polticians tell us at election time that they are each doing what is best for us, we evaluate their claims based on our sources of information, our knowledge of the issue involved, and, yes, self-interest and our own political predispositions. And, in a democracy, the fact that we are not experts does not invalidate our opinions (hell, it seems that half the time the politicians know less than we do).
Now, in going on about this issue, i may have misinterpeted your post. It did seem to me to be implying that those who are not experts should hush up and let the big guys battle it out. But this issue is about nothing if not politics, and, for better or worse, we live in a democracy and we all get to play.
Oh, on your last point: It’s probably obvious to you by now that i oppose war on Iraq. I will add that i would love to see Saddam Hussein out of power, but i just don’t believe that the US is going about it the right way. To me at least, the Administration’s policy often seems to reflect more on what is going on in America than on events in the Middle East. “It’s the economy, stupid,” as James Carville kept reminding Bill Clinton. I know that’s overstating the case, but i do believe it’s a factor.
Jesus. I thought you’d have been hard-pressed to top the stupidity of your previous statements. Was I ever wrong about that.
Once more with feeling:
Anti-war protestors are not pro Suddam. Most of those who are actively involved in the protests appear to want peaceful SOLUTIONS to the problem. We don’t generally deny that there is a problem.
If you think we support Suddam, you are attacking us out of ignorance.
Just curious – Are any of you who support war with Iraq actively involved in demonstrating your thinking? Where are the great pro-war marches?
First of all, which anti-IMF protest is being referred to? I suspect all the globalization-related protests are being conflated into one.
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 care if you SAY that you don’t support Saddam. The fact is, without a US led invasion, he’s going to stay in power. And without the threat of an imminent invasion, he’s not going to cooperate with the inspectors. And without economy-strangling sanctions, he’s going to have enough money to buy the weapons he needs.
If you are against the invasion, that means that inspections won’t work. Inspections will only work if Saddam believes that inspections are the only alternative to invasion. And he will only believe that if we actually do plan on invading him.
If you categorically forbid war, then Saddam stays in power to continue his brutal dictatorship, free from UN meddling. So opposing war means supporting Saddam. You may not like it, but it is a neccesary consequence of opposing the war. No war means Saddam stays.
Just for the record Madkins, I’ve already supported my government by reminding my Senators and Representative they declare war, not the President. That Commander in Chief title is for quick action not a tool of foriegn policy.
-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.