There is much talk and outrage over Marines shooting up a vehicle filled with women and children that was apparently fleeing Baghdad.
Not to diminish the tragedy of it, but not only was it inevitable, it’ll happen again. Look at the situation. Iraqi soldiers hiding behind civilians. Iraqis signing up as suicide attackers. Car bombs being driven into soldiers. All that must have been going through the soldiers’ minds.
A major point of contention seems to be whether warning shots were fired in time. I’m thinking it wouldn’t have made a difference. Iraqis are being told that one of the requirements of being a marine is that you have to kill and eat a baby. I think they were planning to try and run the check point, not to ram it, but to get past what they perceived as a horrifying enemy invading their home. If they’d approached slowly, gotten out of the car, arms raised, they’d have lived. But they didn’t know that. They probably thought if they’d done that, the Americans would have taken their children and turned them into K-rations.
PAD
• 
I’m a reader from Spain (one of the countries that suported USA in the UN) and I find quite sad that americans haven’t spoken up against it’s president in the war theme. Here in Spain there’s a 91% of population against war and you see everywhere people moving to see if war can be stopped (even if it doesn’t help at all)… I could also like to coment that what americans don’t seem to get is that ocupating Iraq will be quite easy compared to what KEEPING it will be… Peter, thank you for your thoughts and forgiving any mistakes I make, I’m much better at understanding than writting in English.
I think it’s an unfortunate generalization to say that Americans haven’t spoken against the war. Peter David has. Michael Moore has. I have.
Maybe it’s not so much that we aren’t speaking out, but just that our message has either been ineffective, or in some cases (right-wing talk radio) has been squelched.
Even though Spain has such an anti-war message, your PM is supporting Bush, so how does that make you feel? Now imagine how we Americans who don’t favor this military action feel.
The Iraqis think that to be a marine, you must eat a child? Peter, where did this come from? I’m sure that you wouldn’t make such a comment unless you obtained it from some sort of news source or something. I can understand how one might want to dehumanize victims of a war because they can’t deal with the tragedy of it, but this is flat out saying they have no common sense. It’s just plain silly.
Here in the UK, the media has been quite objective about the actions of the marines. A lot of it stems from the fact that the UK troops have a lot more experience of dealing with checkpoints after their time in Northern Ireland. Its still sad to see that a tragedy needs to happen before questions are asked and even then its almost a case of “our troops would never do such a thing” reaction.
PAD’s not saying Iraqis believe this because it’s stupid but that it’s what the Iraqi regime is telling them. Here’s the first reference I found in a Google news search, from http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1049112579240070.xml :
** One Marine said a prisoner of war told him “they’d heard to be
a Marine, you had to eat a baby or kill someone.” **
It’s rather interesting that the anti-war protests aren’t known in Spain. If anything, it seems over-reported here (that’s all I ever see on the television).
The Iraqis think that to be a marine, you must eat a child? Peter, where did this come from?
Read it in Newsday, I believe. Either that or the Daily News. One of the two NY papers.
PAD
Coming out of lurkdom to comment to the person from Spain.
There is quite a bit of anti-war sentiment here in the US. The problem is that people are being accused of being “Anti-American” or against the troops. (There’s still quite a bit of leftover anger over how troops were treated badly after Vietnam.) Many of those who are speaking out are losing jobs because of it. I just don’t think this country, as a whole, knows how to deal with this situation.
I think what I find most disturbing is that we are going in there partly because our government feels that Iraq is an oppressive government. Yet we find those who speak out here in a democracy being censured, as a result. And that scares me more than any mistakes we’ve made going into this war.
I just hope that we’re able to work this out as a country, soon.
What the anti-war types are willfully ignoring is that, once it started, it would be worse to stop it than to keep it going. Because, unless that lunatic Hussein and his regime are taken care of, then all the damages and suffering and death which have occured so far will have been for nothing. And people will be even more antipathic of the Americans for failing to finish what they started which will make it pretty much impossible for anyone else to take them seriously ever again. And if not them, then who will the world be willing to have act when unpleasant bue necessary action must be taken? Saying “the U.N.” is all good and fine, but they don’t begin to have the resources to do some of these big jobs. Just clean up afterwards.
Does anyone else suspect the incident at the checkpoint was a setup? Why else would a truck challenging a military checkpoint contain only women and children? We already know the Iraqi military is not above threatening to kill entire families in order to ensure civilian compliance.
In any case, I think the soldiers did what was necessary and that similar incidents will probably happen again.
We are oblivious to is the fact that in many parts of the world crap we think of as nutso trash is ACCEPTED AS COMMON KNOWLEDGE. There are literally tens of thousands if not millions who think 9/11 was a frame-up of bin Laden, that we are using tactical nukes in Baghdad, and that Marines eat babies. And when horrible accidents happen in war these folks will make the story as horrid and sensational as possible to make a buck off populations who hate us.
There’s a huge difference between anti-war, and being anti-president. There are reports of these so called anti-war protestors waving the flags of France, Germany, and Iraq in support while showing effigies of President Bush with multiple bullet holes, covered in blood, etc.
The other difference is that this country was 71% in support of the President taking out of Hussein before the conflict started. (Kind of makes the point of taking him out even nicer when the support is now at 78%.)
The real unfortunate thing about the anti-war protests is that they are run by fringe, far-left groups not to mention members of the communist party.
If the polls had said there was a 91% disapproval against taking out Hussein, then _maybe_ President Bush wouldn’t have started this conflict. This is highly doubtful though has he has shown little regard for these polls in the past.
Yes, multiple people have spoken out against this war. It’s how they’ve spoken out that I question, not what they say.
Iraqis are told marines have to eat a baby?
Bad enough ISN was telling Earthforce that Sheridan’s army was brainwashing Earth soldiers and replacing them with Minbari…
and I think they swiped the idea from the medieval “blood libel” against the Jews.
The real unfortunate thing about the anti-war protests is that they are run by fringe, far-left groups not to mention members of the communist party.
Actually, a lot of the protests are first organized by normal people who disagree with the war. When a protest gets big enough, THEN the fringe groups and the like come out of the woodwork. Of course, that’s all the newsmedia mentions or shows.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/03/31/3e8820b855697
People like this guy (see above link) who ask for “a million Mogadishus” are who screw the anti-war protests.
Amazing.
Simply freaking amazing.
Someone brought up the word “Communist” again.
This is not the 1950’s folks. Or even the 1980’s.
The high almighty Ron took care of the Evil Empire.
And supposedly, this is America, where you can believe anything you want to.
Anti-War? You bet I am. Anti-President? Oh definitely. Anti-Soldiers? no. Not at all.
Now I do agree that since we started it, we need to finish it. That was the problem with the first Bush in the white house. He urged the Shiite’s to uprise, then when it looked like they were winning, he turned his back on them. “Better the devil you know…”
And summarily, thousands of shiite’s were executed by Hussein’s regime.
If we’re going to do it, do it. I may not like it, but once you’ve started, it’s far worse not to finish it. If we stop now, it will make it look like Hussein is a powerful man in the world. And that would be bad.
But for pete’s sake, go in prepared. More ground troops, and more missiles.
Don’t do it half-baked like it is now.
Travis
The other difference is that this country was 71% in support of the President taking out of Hussein before the conflict started. (Kind of makes the point of taking him out even nicer when the support is now at 78%.)
I would be interested in knowing where these numbers came from. In several different polls of Americans(CBS/NY Times, NPR) a week or so before action started 40% approved non-UN sanctioned action, with 55% disapproving of any non-UN sanction. If UN sanction was given (Yeah Right!?!) then approval for action went to 80%. To my knowledge there has never been the 70% range of support that you claim without UN approval.
Now “support for our troops”? Gimme a f-en break. Overwhelmingly people support our troops. But “support of troops” = “support of action” is not true.
A CBS/NY times poll last week has shown an increase in the number (31% – 42%) of people who feel they where deceived about the length of the war. Some people actually thought it would only take days! There was also an increase in the number of people who fear domsectic terrorist retaliation for the action. I can’t remember the exact numbers but some where around a 20-25% increase.
The real unfortunate thing about the anti-war protests is that they are run by fringe, far-left groups not to mention members of the communist party.
Ahhh, members of the communist party? Ohhhhhhhh k. Check the calendar. Check your address. Check your pulse. Last I looked (What has Ashcroft been up to today?) Americans had freedom of religion and freedom from repression.
So what was the reason for this action anyway?…..regime change…disarming….terrorism…which one is it today?
So the Iraqi people are being told that the Marines are all Fat Bášŧárd?!?
“Baby: The other, other white meat!”
Well, I disagree that we are doing it half-baked. We are moving in more ground troops. It seems to me that the strategy has been to capture the airfields, preventing missile attacks against Israel, and surround Baghdad before bringing in all the troops. In any case all of the generals who are actually involved in the operation say everything is going according to plan. The armchair generals don’t even know what the plan is.
As for the protestors, there is a big difference between thinking the war was unjustified or unwise before we went in, and wanting America to lose after we went in. The latter *is* anti-American. Withdrawing from Iraq before the job is done would be a disaster for this country and for the Iraqi people. Furthermore, the people who are protesting the war are by and large people who protest everything from globalization (whatever that means) to the environment. What they do when there isn’t a protest I have no idea.
And yes, the major groups financing the protests are backed by communists groups who support the governments of North Korea and Cuba. That’s not really subject to dispute.
To Jaume:
And there you have it in a nutshell. Why don’t you hear about anti-war activities in the US? Because it’s marginilized by the flag waving, goose stepping majority.
If you disagree with the war, you’re a commie! You’re part of the fringe!
I imagine the “you’re a commie” label will be used if you have a problem with that the company that has the big reconstruction contract for Iraq is the one that the VP is the former CEO of. Gee..didn’t Cheney’s company rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure after the last Gulf War, netting him tons of $$$? Hmmm..you don’t suppose there’s a connection do you? nahhhh
I think that since we’ve started this war, we do need to finish it and do so properly.
However, I don’t see that there’s any problem with continuing to protest the war. It lets our government know that we don’t agree with them, so perhaps they won’t do this in the future. It also lets the rest of the world see the exercise of democracy.
As for the communists supporting anti-war protests? I don’t see that it really means much of anything. There’s a great story on the NPR site that talks about how most of these protests are the result of religious groups and political groups of ALL types coming together. They agree on their common position, but they choose not to expand further upon that.
What’s that line from “The American President?” I’m sure I’m mangling it, but it’s something along the lines of, “Democracy is not easy. It means shouting at the top of your voice while someone whose views you abhor shouts at the top of theirs.”
In any case all of the generals who are actually involved in the operation say everything is going according to plan.
Oh, there’s a shock. Do you expect them to say, “Well gee, we weren’t expecting _that_ to happen!”.
Furthermore, the people who are protesting the war are by and large people who protest everything from globalization (whatever that means) to the environment. What they do when there isn’t a protest I have no idea.
Likely queue up in ever growing unemployment lines. I’m not sure what you mean by protesting the enviroment…it’s generaly the oil lackys who don’t care for the enviroment.
And yes, the major groups financing the protests are backed by communists groups who support the governments of North Korea and Cuba.
Really? How do I get hooked up with that? What with the US Economy in shambles due to old money malice and political neglect, I could use a good source of income.
Spot on Scavenger.
Follow the money trail and ye shall find the truth…
The idea that it’s good to still protest the war even if you feel we should finish the war and not just quit makes no sense to me.
I don’t think it sends a good message of “democracy” to the rest of the world, I think it sends a message of disunity and silliness to the rest of the world.
Using my company as a microcosm, before an initiative is implimented, discuss, debate and protest all you want, but once the initiative is a “go” I expect everyone to get behind it and make it work.
How war protestor can be against the war but for the soldiers fighting it is equally confusing. Ask the soldiers if they feel you’re behind them.
Actually, last I heard Halliburton wasn’t going to get any Iraq contracts, and even if they did it would not benefit Cheney since he no longer owns any stock in the company.
>>And there you have it in a nutshell. Why don’t you hear about anti-war activities in the US? Because it’s marginilized by the flag waving, goose stepping majority.
Just a thought, but if you don’t like being marginalized by people who don’t agree with you, you might not want to start off by comparing them to Nazis. The golden rule, and all that.
You know, I envy the right wing people. I really do.
I envy their remarkable ability to hear Bush mangle speeches that are written and put before him and find inspiration.
I envy that they can be told “Sadaam Hussein is buddies with Osma Bin Laden” and despite all logical thought and the absence of any shred of proof, believe.
I envy that they can accept that we invaded a soveriegn country because they defied UN sanctions, all the while we’re defying UN sanctions by doing it.
I envy that they can believe that we’re in Iraq to take away the weapons of mass distruction…I mean to prevent terrorism…I mean to free the Iraqi people….I mean to give a lot of money to Haliburtion and other major Republican party contributors…Oh wait…I wasn’t supposed to say that part allowed.
I envy that they can wave the flag and speak about freedoms while at the same time labeling anyone who doesn’t agree with them communists and traitors.
I envy their ability to ignore that a nation once seen as the dream of western civilization is becoming more isolated and hated day by day, that our actions give this country’s enemey’s more fuel and justification for their hatred, that our national infrastructure and finances are collapsing around us, unnoticed by all but those who stop sing “G-d Bless America” long enough to look around and see where we’ve actually come to.
I envy their ability to sleep unworried about the future, wrapped in their flags.
I’m sure when the bullets fly, the soldiers would rather have you in front of them.
“Operation Human Shield” and such.
Just a thought, but if you don’t like being marginalized by people who don’t agree with you, you might not want to start off by comparing them to Nazis. The golden rule, and all that.
Ah, but that would presume that the people in the antiwar movement are trying to change the hearts and minds of people who have an honest disagreement with them, rather than making a self-satisfied spectacle of their inherent moral superiority over the folks who support the war.
One might also question whether characterizing those who support the war in Iraq as foolish dupes who would change their minds if only the scales would fall from their eyes, or calling any disagreement with their position a new McCarthyism, will win any converts to the cause.
The antiwar people would be better off concentrating on establishing a just and democratic regime in Iraq after the war and holding the Administration to its rhetoric about human rights and freedom — which would be a cause even “I can’t believe I’m a hawk” hawks like me could endorse. But that’s unlikely to happen with folks like ANSWER (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=385) playing such a large role in the antiwar movement to date.
Rob: The idea that it’s good to still protest the war even if you feel we should finish the war and not just quit makes no sense to me.
Um.
Excuse me? You’re saying it’s a dichotomy?
In a country where the idea of “one person one vote” is disseminated freely… but the popular vote doesn’t elect a president?
In a country where people can be pro-life but pro-death penalty at the same time?
This country is full of dichotomies.
I am against the war, because I do not trust the leaders’ intentions on the war.
I am for us finishing it, because if we stop, then Saddam would get braver in his atrocities.
But the point is, we should have never started. If the elder Bush had done his job, then we wouldn’t have been here.
Saddam needs to be taken out, yes. Just for the fact of his crimes against humanity. Not for any other reason.
Dubya has never fully convinced the American people of why we should be over there. He spent too much time convincing other governments, not successfully, I might add.
And we are the ones he needs to convince. Because he is a public servant. Or is supposed to be. Or does “public” mean Enron and other oil companies, who backed his campaign?
I am a dichotomous man. I’m an American, that’s the definition.
Travis
Babycakes?
Seems to me that, after all, people in iraq do read american/british short stories by Neil Gaiman…
Pascal
In any case all of the generals who are actually involved in the operation say everything is going according to plan.
From Today’s New York Times:
Officers on the Iraqi battlefield complain that the
Pentagon has not sent enough troops to wage the war as they
want to fight it.
But I’m sure those men and women in the field are likely communists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/01/international/worldspecial/01PENT.html?th
The other difference is that this country was 71% in support of the President taking out of Hussein before the conflict started. (Kind of makes the point of taking him out even nicer when the support is now at 78%.)
I really wonder where these polls results come from. It’s almost undeniable that most big networks in US are supporting the war, both CNN and FOX News have pro-war approach over it. So it wouldn’t be so hard to believe that information is also being built for a pro war impression. Maybe they’re not completely wrong, but just twisted. just twisted enough to fit some interests.
I just cannot believe that people from the most powerful country in the world could be so gullible.
However, most of the time people from US are shown to believe that in Taiwan we speak cantonese, that in Brazil we speak Spanish and our capital city is Buenos AIres. Maybe it’s just a lame sterotype.
I tend to believe the best in people, but the the economical and political issues in this war are all too clear to believe in any noble reason that it may have (and which most of the kids out there fighting believe their working for).
Yes , Saddan is a dictator, we’ll never question that, but there are also dictators in other several countries around the globe, so why doens’t US try to put them down. Why only Iraq?
Since the end of the Cold War, it just seem that weaponry lobbist in US are desperately seeking for a new so said “enemy”. 9-11 was the solution for the search, and now “Terrorrist” are the enemy. But what’s a terrorist, not in the plain definition that we can find in any dictionary, but the one US government is using to label Terrorists as terrosrists.
As I and several others are defending. You don’t need to be anti-american to be anti-war. I am anti-war, but in no way I am anti american. I’m not gonna stop buying Coke, watching movies at Cinemark, reading american comics or eating at McDonald’s, because I’m anti war. Yes, I’m annoyed by Bush Jr. politics, but that doens’t make me anti-american. I don’t think that anyone in US who disagrees with his politics, becomes less american in any way at all, it’s actually one of the clearest manifestations, of US’ Constitution, which seems being ignored by a lot of people: the Freedom of Speech.
Omitting parts of the truth is still truth. These polls at the end just seems another mroe regional approach form of the information war that is also being fought during this second Gulf War. I’m not stating that those statistics are being manipulated, but just saying that they are kinda hard to be believed.
Before going:
a) In Taiwan we speak the Chinese main dialect mandarin, which due to China’s population is also the language spoken by most people in the world. Cantonese can be found in smaller comunities, and is kind of rare.
b) In Brazil, WE DON’T SPEAK SPANISH. We’re the largest country in Latin American, and even though most of the Latin American countries speak SPanish, WE DON’T. The language spoken in Brazil is PORTUGUESE.
c) Buenos Aires was NEVER Brazil’s capital city. Buenos Aires is Argentina’s capital city. The current Brazilian capital city is Bras
I no longer need any additional validation to solidify my belief that somewhere between 85-95% of these peace lovers are hypocrites who know very little history of this current conflict. If you do need further evidence, I implore you to study our most recent conflicts. Where were the morally superior peace lovers when Clinton bombed Sarajevo? Do they know he tried to get UN approval and failed, then went with only NATO? Does that route sound familiar? I don’t recall any rallies for peace at Boston Common? Where were they when Clinton sent a few Cruise Missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan? (which, by the way, made this country look impotent and only emboldened our enemies to act). Where were they when Desert Fox was launched on Baghdad in 1998 in coalition with the British? I don’t recall any mass protesting of the Democrat in office for these actions, do you?
Many of the protesters suggest we need to combat terrorism at its roots, not just launch bombs. I agree with this sentiment. Many of the protestors think our current war of liberation in Iraq is not a means to this end. I disagree. Regime change in Iraq is designed for precisely this goal. A stable pluralistic Arab country in the Middle East with a self sufficient economy (they have lots of oil) will be a model for other Arabs (i.e. Syria and Saudi Arabia) to envy. Terrorism is partly an economic issue, and this war will address that issue. It will cause a domino effect for economic growth in the Middle East. Do the protestors care to know that the soon to be liberated city of Basra does not have a pipeline to deliver sanitized water, while Saddam lives in numerous palaces. The number of people that Saddam is responsible for killing, whether by a bullet or malnutrition, is incalculable. He does not redistribute Iraq’s wealth to the people. It’s funny because it sounds like Bush is actually doing something about the principals that Democrats traditional stand for. I disagree with his tax cuts and most of his domestic agenda, but I am extremely grateful he his our President at this moment in History. Note to protestors, if you didn’t protest the above actions, then shut up, otherwise you are a hypocrite.
Travis quotes in :
In a country where the idea of “one person one vote” is disseminated freely… but the popular vote doesn’t elect a president?
Anyone who paid attention in Civics class knows that everyone gets one vote, yes, and the electoral college determines the winner. If it wasn’t that way, the “city folk” would decide everything for the “country folk”. It’s a rough system, but it beats the alternative in this representative government.
In a country where people can be pro-life but pro-death penalty at the same time?
Pro-life refers to innocent babies; death penalty is for guilty (hopefully) parties. No dictomy there.
If the elder Bush had done his job, then we wouldn’t have been here.
That would have been in defiance of the UN, too.
Saddam needs to be taken out, yes. Just for the fact of his crimes against humanity.
Amen and I agree.
Dubya has never fully convinced the American people of why we should be over there.
He convinced me.
Because he is a public servant. Or is supposed to be.
I think he is, and an excellent one at that. The problem he will run into, of course, is that if this campaign is successful, it won’t be as obvious as if he sat and did nothing.
I am a dichotomous man. I’m an American, that’s the definition.**
Well, that’s a description, perhaps, but I think being a citizen is the definition. Nonetheless, I’m proud to have you as a fellow American. What a boring place this would be if we all agreed.
An aside: Peaceniks, I think, are a bit ahead of their time. Using the term “anti-war” is a bit odd to me. I think everyone is anti-war. It’s a misnomer to suggest that all pro-choice people are “pro-abortion” in that they don’t want everyone to rush out and get pregnant so they can get one. I think more pro-choice people want abortion available “just in case” or if it’s “necessary” (I can’t really imagine circumstances where this would be the case, mind you) than because it’s a neat procedure that every woman should have.
War is the same thing. I’m balls-out against it… unless it’s necessary.
Peaceniks live in a civilized world, bless ’em. They think the rest of the world is equally civilized. When the world actually IS, I’l be happy to join their ranks. Until then, large tracts of land are uncivilized. They understand nothing but force. When such people gain WMD to match their current will to use them, they will use them. Either we make sure they don’t get WMD or we make sure they no longer have the will (or sadly, the life) to use them.
The world is different today. The opening shot of a war is no longer a bullet or a small bomb; the first shot today can destroy thousands if not more. Until those who would do so are gone, this new world must be adapted to. I think GWB has done so. I’m certain Gore has not.
Travis
Whoops. The above wasn’t signed by Travis, that was a relic I guess I failed to get rid of. And I must have stumbled across some formatting thingies by accident.
I promise to use the Preview button from now on…
My greatest fear is after Saddam Hussein is gone we won’t create a nice stable, democratic Iraq that will be the envy of the middle east. What seems more likely to me is that once we are gone the country’s Shiite majority will create an Iranian-style theocracy just as repressive as Hussein’s.
Remember that we once tried to prop up a pro-western regime in Iran. That didn’t work out to well for us then.
The idea that we can just go in, shoot Hussein, and then leave a democracy behind in a year is ludicrous.
Where were the morally superior peace lovers when Clinton bombed Sarajevo? Do they know he tried to get UN approval and failed, then went with only NATO? Does that route sound familiar? I don’t recall any rallies for peace at Boston Common? Where were they when Clinton sent a few Cruise Missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan? (which, by the way, made this country look impotent and only emboldened our enemies to act). Where were they when Desert Fox was launched on Baghdad in 1998 in coalition with the British? I don’t recall any mass protesting of the Democrat in office for these actions, do you?
The same place the warhawks were when the first President Bush urged the Shiites to rise up against Saddam, and then hung them out to dry while Saddam slaughtered them.
PAD
The Iraqis think that to be a marine, you must eat a child? Peter, where did this come from?
Read it in Newsday, I believe. Either that or the Daily News. One of the two NY papers.
PAD
WOW. – eyes opened. Thanks.
Actually, when the first President Bush did not back the Shiites he angered a lot of conservatives. I’d say that the failure to take out Saddam Hussein in 1991 plus his raising taxes in 1990 cost George H. W. Bush the support of the conservative wing of the Republican party, which may in turn have cost him a second term.
I’m beginning to like Rob… this is becoming a discussion instead of a shouting match.
I, of course, disagree with most everything you say in response to me. But, gee, if we all thought alike, it wouldn’t be fun.
I understand the civics reference, but I think it is outdated. It should be rethought.
I personally think Bush is a horrid public servant. He hasn’t accomplished anything in my eyes.
Hmm…
thought it was going to be a shouting match… not that I’m disapointed, mind you. Just surprised.
Travis
See though, if you’re demonstrating against the war — why would you have effigys of the president? Why would the protest need to be funded by fringe, anti-american, anti-capitalism groups?
If you’re against the war, you’re against the armed conflicts between two armies. Burning an effigy of the president during an anti-war demonstration no longer makes it an anti-war demonstration.
As for the polling data… Why, Fox news.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82357,00.html
dubya has never fully convinced the American people of why we should be over there.
He convinced me.
How?
Seriously. What facts has he offered? What evidence?
I hear many saying that he’s proved his case to them….but I just don’t understand how or what he’s done. So Rob please explain what he’s said or done that has convinced you.
I am against the overthrowing of any government without UN backing. The United Nations was established to help bring unity to the world and to prevent ANY government from invading another without being attacked first or proving that there is no other recourse. Our government has failed to provide the evidence they claimed to have to the UN and they failed to prove to the UN that there was any other option. By rejecting UN approval we are setting an example to other nations across the world to ignore international law and United Nations sanctions and do as they please. Were other nations ignoring the UN? Yes. But you don’t beat the criminals by resorting to criminal actions. Our government is currently ignoring international law and has also violated some parts of the Geneva convention. I think that Saddam Hussein is an evil man and he should be overthrown, but I don’t believe we should have acted without UN approval. The consequences of these actions are that the World Community hates us as a people and we have given the terrorists more ammunition against us. Until we invaded Iraq terrorist group membership was in decline, now it is on the rise again and according to news reports they feel we are more vulnerable because we are distracted in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It was a great idea of our government’s to inspire our enemies like this wasn’t it?
Our government has also enacted the Patriot Act which now takes precedent over many aspects of our own Bill of Rights. That isn’t a good idea in my opinion. Sure I want to be safe in my own country, but I don’t want to lose my freedoms in the name of being “safe”. If we relinquish our freedoms to ensure our safety we will neither be free nor safe.
Having said all that, we have no choice but to finish off Saddam now. If we do not, he will undoubtedly strike back at a later date. Also, any Iraqis who did oppose his regime would be punished horribly. But it is a good idea for there to be a voice of dissent out there and I’ll tell you why. A lot of anti-war people are asking why Iraq and why not all the other totalitarian regimes out there. The answer is we haven’t gotten around to them yet. You have to start somewhere and Afghanistan and Iraq were as good as places as any. Our government is planning on overthrowing many other nations too. Iraq is just the beginning. Bush has hinted at it in several carefully phrased speeches and most recently Collin Powell has told Iran and Syria to watch themselves and to rid themselves of weapons of mass destruction. Our government is taking potential enemies and by threatening them turning them into certain enemies. How does that make us more safe here at home? Our government is giving these divided nations, some of whom were at war with each other, a threat to unite against.
Also, the “War on Terror” was planned prior to 9/11. Here is a link that describes the movement supported by a number of Bush’s Cabinet and his brother. http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/2003/01/27/news/local/5025024.htm
Our government also wants to develop “useable” nuclear weapons to use on other nations like North Korea. One such proposal is the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54638-2003Mar7?language=printer
You want to talk hypocrisy? Our government wants to upgrade our weapons of mass destruction while at the same time disarming others. Why not, we’re the “good guys” right? Is it any wonder the rest of the world is angry and terrified of the USA? We want to “defend” ourselves by nuking our enemies into oblivion. We free the oppressed people of the world by blowing them up? I guess in a sense they will no longer be oppressed then. At least not in this life. And is it really a good idea to detonate nuclear bombs in an uncontrolled situation INSIDE THE EARTH? That can’t be good for our planet. I know a lot of people either don’t care if we abuse our environment or feel that we can’t really do any damage to it, but jeez how far do you take that position? How could anyone who is informed of the consequences of explosive force and nuclear weaponry think this is a good idea? Radioactive contamination of the land aside, has anybody considered the possibility of massive earthquakes or volcanic activity as a result?
I’m more than a little concerned about the path our government is taking us. Not only do I have to live in fear of insane terrorists, I have to live in fear of the growing potential for World War III.
<
The same place the warhawks were when the first President Bush urged the Shiites to rise up against Saddam, and then hung them out to dry while Saddam slaughtered them.
PAD >>
Bush Sr. bowed to the will of the world majority at the time which wanted regional stability. The same world majority that DOESN’t want Jr. there now for the same reason. Frankly, the world majority doesn’t have a very good track record with being right. World War 1 and 2, Sarajevo, Kosovo, Iraq-Iran, and the Gulf War all happened because of world opinion. Before people start thinking that the US should bow to the world majority in all matters, ask yourself what would be the most likely outcome if the US bowed to world opinion and stopped supporting Israel? And remember, Israel DOES have nukes.
I’d like to point out that if the world opinion was that we SHOULD go in and invade Iraq, and we said no, the world would still hold us in the same high regard as it does now.
I’d like to also point out that the world seems OKAY with the idea that Saddam has killed or is indirectly responsible for the deaths of well over a million people, mostly other Arabs. As I said, world opinion doesn’t have a good track record.
I’d like to also point out that the world seems OKAY with the idea that Saddam has killed or is indirectly responsible for the deaths of well over a million people, mostly other Arabs.
I’d like to point out that we’ve been ok with that for many, many years. The members of the administration like Cheney was more than happy with it after he was out of the White House and into the board room of Haliburton.
Travis wrote:
Amazing.
Simply freaking amazing.
Someone brought up the word “Communist” again.
This is not the 1950’s folks. Or even the 1980’s.
The high almighty Ron took care of the Evil Empire.
And supposedly, this is America, where you can believe anything you want to.
You are right, in America you have the freedom to believe and espouse whatever politics you want. But—how would you feel if neo-Nazi groups were involved in organizing anti-war protests? Wouldn’t that make you a bit suspicious of the protester’s motivations?
Then consider this: in the 20th century communist dictatorships killed far more people than Hitler ever dreamed of. Communist regimes routinely killed people because they had the wrong religion, the wrong ethnicity, the wrong politics, the wrong science, the wrong art, etc. And from Lenin to Pol Pot, they kept doing it, building up a body count in the tens of millions.
So when someone says “I’m a communist” or works closely with communist organizations, I’m going to hold them in the same contempt I hold neo-Nazi freaks. As far as I’m concerned wrapping yourself in the Hammer & Sickle is analogous to wrapping yourself in the Swastika. It marks that person as a scumbag. And while I’ll defend their free speech rights, I’m going to use my free speech to point out that they are believers in a morally bankrupt, genocidal, totalitarian ideology.
That being said, I realize only a small portion of the anti-war protesters are members of communist organizations. Most of the protesters are sincere people who are genuinely concerned about the direction their country is moving in, people who are motivated out of love of country and concern for human suffering.
However, if someone marches with communists, they shouldn’t be surprised when many people look at them as if they were marching with Nazis.
Carl Henderson
I wish people would stop thinking that the Administration has been planning this for a long time means anything in particular. That’s someone’s JOB to do contingency plans, and those plans need to be constantly updated. Otherwise you’d be extremely ill prepared for what actions you do want to take…[on the other hand, it seems like for most people, “preparedness” is a four letter word….]
Now, the appearance that Bush seems to have made up his mind a long time ago is a SEPARATE matter…
Carl Henderson: So when someone says “I’m a communist” or works closely with communist organizations, I’m going to hold them in the same contempt I hold neo-Nazi freaks. As far as I’m concerned wrapping yourself in the Hammer & Sickle is analogous to wrapping yourself in the Swastika. It marks that person as a scumbag.
I can’t exactly fault your argument; it’s really a matter of semantics.
After all, there are communists and then there are Communists. Just as there are those who believe in nationalized socialism, and then there are Nazis (which, mind you, stands for (roughly translated) National Socialists).
If someone supports the Marxist theory that society will eventually reach a point where the market will no longer drive interests, and the class separations will break down — that we will live “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” — that person is a (small-‘c’) communist, and no more inclined to acts of genocide and mass slaughter than anyone else.
If, on the other hand, a person supports Leninist/Stalinist thought, believing that the oppressive capitalist systems must be violently overthrown, and that those who oppose that overthrow or the principles behind it are an enemy to be destroyed, then that person is a (big-‘c’) Communist, and possibly going to be a bit less pleasant.
But to group the former in with the latter seems particularly unfair. (And I lament the usurpation of the hammer-and-sickle — which is a most effective representation of the lower working class — much as I lament the theft of the schwastika — a symbol originally associated with peace. Sadly, neither symbol will probably ever regain its original respectability…)
As for people interested in labeling people as “communists”, “terrorists” or “traitors”, you really must take the time to look these definitions up.
Communists support rule by the government over the people with the government equally distributing wealth among the people and/or the overthrowing of capitalism. I haven’t heard of any anti-war protests with this message in them. Are there really people speaking peaking out against the war saying the government should take a firmer hand and redistribute wealth and prevent the start of anyone owning their own businesses? I’m sure there are some anti-war protesters who feel this way, but I’m sure that there are some pro-war rallies with people who feel the same way. Anti-war and communism are not related political positions.
An anti-war person would have to engage in acts of violence or threats against other people to be even considered a terrorist. There are some anti-war protesters who are stepping over the line here, but I have also heard news reports of pro-war rallies turning to violence or threats against the anti-war protestors. In fact many public figures such speaking out against the war are receiving death-threats. Congratulations to anyone supporting the “War on Terror” who has done such a thing, you are now a terrorist.
To be declared a traitor you would actually have to do something to betray your country such as engaging in an act of violence against the government or the people, threatening an act of violence against the government or the people, smuggling terrorists or weapons into the country, or giving money to fund an enemy government or terrorist faction.
None of these definitions fit people who speak out against governmental policy or the war, or who engage in peaceful protests.
The act of labeling people as communists, terrorists, traitors and anti-American when they do not fit those definitions is not an act of patriotism, it is an act of nationalism. Here is an article that distinguishes the two.
http://www.americasvoices.org/archives2003/AdamsJ/AdamsJ_012503.htm
Patriots founded this country like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Patriots were people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln.
Famous nationalist movements include the Roman Empire and Nazi Germany. Y’know stuff like “For the Glory of Rome!” and “For the Fatherland!” That kind of thing.
“I wish people would stop thinking that the Administration has been planning this for a long time means anything in particular. That’s someone’s JOB to do contingency plans, and those plans need to be constantly updated. Otherwise you’d be extremely ill prepared for what actions you do want to take…[on the other hand, it seems like for most people, “preparedness” is a four letter word….]
Now, the appearance that Bush seems to have made up his mind a long time ago is a SEPARATE matter…”
Right, there is plenty of evidence to support the position that this was not a contingency plan, but rather THE plan all along regardless of 9/11. Most people do not realize this. For many, this information would not change their minds, but for some it would. The government has portrayed this war as a reaction to 9/11 to gain public support when they were planning on this action anyway.
\\If someone supports the Marxist theory that society will eventually reach a point where the market will no longer drive interests, and the class separations will break down — that we will live “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” — that person is a (small-‘c’) communist, and no more inclined to acts of genocide and mass slaughter than anyone else.
If, on the other hand, a person supports Leninist/Stalinist thought, believing that the oppressive capitalist systems must be violently overthrown, and that those who oppose that overthrow or the principles behind it are an enemy to be destroyed, then that person is a (big-‘c’) Communist, and possibly going to be a bit less pleasant.\\
While I agree that there are people who hold the views of small and big “C” communism, the problem with your analogy is the Karl Marx himself was a big “C” Communist.
Remember: “Works of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!”
He did advocate the violent overthrow of the capitalist system. His theory was the the proletariot would form a dictatorship that would redistribute wealth, then just fall away into a utopian society.
Funny how he never saw the contradiction that capitalists would have to be overthrown, but the proletariot would somehow be “purer” and would just voluntarily give up power.