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:
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I don’t know what ‘sarcasm’ is. Really. Isn’t ‘sarcasm’ a moderator here or something?
Brutus, if I used your logic then I would have to say that you are pro-death.
I think at this point Brutus can only fairly be said to be pro-ignorance.
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.
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.
So it wasn’t the UN who imposed sanctions then?
Do you know the difference?
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?)
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.
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:
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
No. Can you read?
Perhaps, Mr. Genius, you could tell us what they’re doing.
Or do you just want to invade anyway?! :smack:
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.
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
Heres two. They don’t exactly support Saddam either.
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. 
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?
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.
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.)