View Full Version : Anti-war protests

03-05-2003, 04:23 PM
There was supposed to be nation wide protests on 300+ campuses today. I was at one here at ASU, except for the fact that I'm "pro-war" (I prefer the term Anti-tyrany) My sign was about how ungrateful the French are, not about attacking Iraq. The thing that got the most atention was that I wrote "To Toni Smith" on the back of my left hand and gave the finger. I was very polite and respectful to anyone whom I spoke with. I shook hands and had some "intelligent" conversations with some French-Americans. I had to tell a couple of kool-aid haird hippies to get the fuck out of my face (it seems they can't act like respectful human beings, they have to bang a drum, chant, and scream like idiots). I was mainly stressing the point that my grandfathers waged war in France to liberate those people of the Nazis, and now they would rather trade with Iraq then liberate them. I had some Native American tell me my grandfathers "Murdered his people and stole their land" and then he took off. I wrote a very nice letter to the editor that I hope gets published in the school rag. It seems he's under the impression that if a person has fair skin they can't be Native American. I intend to prove that my people, the Cherokee, went through worse then any of the Native Americans in the west. Today was a wierd day.

Susan Wayward
03-06-2003, 02:47 AM
Sigh . . . a big can of worms to open, ASU, but at least you care. I performed a few weeks ago at a Burlesque for Peace event, so we certainly have differing viewpoints.

I think that the French are concerned about the implications of allowing the US to use force with as little justification as there presently is. I am concerned about this as well; while I think that Iraq is not a place I'd want to live, and Saddam Hussein is not a leader concerned with the well being of his people, I am not convinced that this possible war will ultimately do any good for the people of Iraq; after all, after Desert Storm, he remained in power and the people were the ones to suffer. Even with a "regime change," the US has supported dictators and governments (especially in Latin and South America) that have had horrendous human rights records. This country has an unfortunate tendency to ignore human suffering until it becomes a convenient public justification for the use of force to achieve other goals.

That being said, if there is a war I will certainly support our troops as I have nothing but respect for the men and women in the armed forces, and hope for a speedy end to hostilities; the one positive thing that might come from it would be a successful regime change; but those things truly have to come from movements within a country to have any lasting effect at all.

03-06-2003, 03:40 AM
Colette, the reason the French are against this, is because one of their big oil companies has a deal with Iraq for development or something to that effect. They are worried about their oil, just as Bush is concerned with our oil. Both the French and the US, are acting on selfish reasons.

03-06-2003, 09:56 AM
And what if the nerve gas cannister goes off even after we assassinate Saddam? How about if we invade and Saddam launches missiles with nerve gas warheads on Israel, why wouldn't he, afterall what does he have to lose? Bush's intent is very clear, he is to be killed; if I were a bloody dictator about to die, I'd probably take as many enemies with me as possible.

Don't be fooled, it's not just France that is opposed to this war, the vast majority of ALL nations in the UN are opposed. What the Shrub wants to do is thumb his nose at the world and invade a sovereign nation REGARDLESS what international law or opinion says about it. That by definition is imperial if not tyrranical behavior; the Shrub doesn't even have a consensus among American legislators or citizens. Make no mistake, this war is personal; what the long term outcome of it will be is hard to say, but I can assure you Baby Bush hasn't a clue!

03-06-2003, 11:40 AM
And what if the nerve gas cannister goes off even after we assassinate Saddam? How about if we invade and Saddam launches missiles with nerve gas warheads on Israel, why wouldn't he, afterall what does he have to lose?

How could he do that ? Saddam does not have any nerve gas. He said so himself ;)

Sorry I couldn't resist

03-06-2003, 01:13 PM
while i'm no fan of Saddam Hussein and wouldn't mind seeing him removed under different circumstances. i think the united states policy justifying the invasion of iraq, sets a terrible precedent. here are some of the reasons from the current administration as to why we must invade iraq.

1) iraq has WMD (weapons of mass destruction) in his possession.

2) Saddam Hussein is a murderer,who has used WDM on his own people.

3) Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, who violates the human rights of his own citizens. we must invade in order to bring peace,freedom and democracy to the people of iraq.

on the surface, they all seem like noble reasons. however,the problem is that, the same conditions which supplies our impetus for invading iraq, are present in some of our allies as well (china, pakistan, saudi arabia, egypt,etc). there is a deeper game being played here and frankly,no one in this administration has been entirely forthcoming. then again, the noble ideas does make it an easier sell.

03-06-2003, 02:15 PM
there is a deeper game being played here and frankly,no one in this administration has been entirely forthcoming. then again, the noble ideas does make it an easier sell.

This is easy Punk: #1. OIL #2. Saddam tried to kill his father in Kuwait after the last war. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem going after all the whackos of the world, but I don't think this administration is looking at all the consequences that may happen if and when we do attack.

03-06-2003, 09:35 PM
I never get into politics or world affairs with friends or family, but I couldn't resist this one, since it's something I feel so strongly about:

I think a very prevalent issue in this, is that this is not necessarily the US initiating war on Iraq, but rather a continuation from the one in 1990. After that war , there was NO signed peace treaty - but instead they settled on the arrangement that Saddam would disarm himelf of weapons of mass destruction....Well, we all know the answer to that subject - (see witt's "witty" post above ;) ) - and since he is obviously not disarmed,(and doesn't look like he plans on it anytime soon), this is in fact, a continuation of that war, since Saddam blatantly ignored the truce.
We have been trying everything for the past 12 years to resolve this with this evil man...inspections, force under the Clinton Administration, resolutions, etc.... and I think that we have tried a long time to be peaceful in our ways - 12 years worth! ((digression: we also dropped more bombs on Iraq in 1998 under Clinton, than in the whole Gulf War, and no one uttered a peep - where were the protests then?)))
War is terrible -and awful - but is it morally right to allow the suffering of his country to continue like this when practically rewarding this man by not addresing the issue that he has blatantly broken the truce?
Who knows. :-/


03-07-2003, 03:24 AM
I personally can't make a definitive case for the upcoming conflict or against it (for the record I do think it WILL happen), but there are a lot of "what if" questions that are going to have to be answered regardless of what path we take. So let me ride the fence here.

If there is something that I distrust about the anti-war crowd, its that some have forgotten the fact that appeasement of an aggressor will just lead that aggressor to take more. The French for that matter should understand that lesson better than anybody. Saddam Hussein fits the definition of an aggressor down to the punctuation. If we had simply turned our backs and left after expelling him from Kuwait, I assure you that he would have remilitarized and attempted to invade again.

To dismiss Saddam as a "regional threat" is simply proposterous. The only thing in fact that has kept Hussein from terrorizing his neighbors and opposition groups in his own country has been the ongoing military campaign to keep the Saddam's capabilities in check, such as enforcement of the no-fly zones over much of the country. As Jacqueline stated, we're already at war and have been since 1991.

But in a post 9/11 world, Saddam doesn't need a million soldiers, a fleet of planes, tanks, and ballistic missile capability to wreak havoc. All he needs is a few people with enough technological know how to produce a weapon of mass destruction, and a few suicidal nuts to deliver that weapon to its intended target. When Al-Queda based itself in Taliban controlled Afghanistan, it didn't have anywhere NEAR the destructive capability Hussein has, and looked what happened there.

That point said, let me now state my reservations about this whole mess.

I'm growing loathsome of this notion of our men and women in uniform having to play the world's police department in far reaching corners of the globe where our interests as a nation start concrete but grow a tad fuzzy over time.

Take Somalia for instance. What exactly were we doing there? Some called it a "humanitarian mission". Well not to seem unsympathetic to the Somalis plight, but I don't pay taxes so our armed forces can be humanitarians. I pay taxes so they can do what they were intended to do. Namely kill people and break things.

If a third world country is falling to shambles, I don't see where its our military's obligation to fix it and I think were just bringing more trouble upon ourselves by sticking our mitts into such things. NOT that I am comparing Somalia to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Even if the hostilities end quickly in Iraq and a friendly regime is established there, we are going to have military personnel stationed there for a LONG time. And thats merely going to create more resentment of us abroad. Where do we go after Iraq? Sudan? Libya? Indonesia? In we take that route we're going have our troops so spread about that they will be of little effectiveness anywhere. The Korean conflict ended 50 years ago and we STILL have troops there, and as that predicament becomes more worrysome by the day, we may need more.

Then theres the oil question. I think for anyone to suggest access to Iraq's oil isn't part of our motive in this is just plain nuts. Granted, like anyone else, I don't want to pay $5.00/gallon to fill up my car. But it would have seem to me if emphasis on making an alternative fuel source for our transportation had been a top priority decades ago, we might have those futuristic hydrogen cars on the road TODAY, and wouldn't be debating this mess in the Middle East.

Its astounding that we can get a man to the moon in under 10 years, but its taken more than a century to find a viable alternative to the internal cumbustion engine. With more and more gas guzzline SUV's hitting the road, and with Bush and Cheney practically in the oil barons pockets, I can't see much change in the forseeable future on that front.

03-07-2003, 03:51 AM
Hey Catfish, I dont know how old you are, but when Jimmy Carter was president, as bad as he was, he got us away from foreign oil. I believe we were down to using only 30 % or so. But as you may or may not remember, he had double digit inflation when he was in. Then Reagan got in, and he figured it was so cheap to import that oil again, he gave up on alternative plans. If we followed Carter's path, we wouldnt be needing any middle eastern oil! So while Reagan turned around our economy, you see 20 years later, we are fucked! These politicians only care for today, not tomorrow, no matter what they say!

03-07-2003, 06:27 AM
I think the main reason the French, the Germans and others are against a pre-emptive war is because they are skeptical of the Bush Administration's stated motives for invading Iraq. I believe there is good reason to be skeptical of the stated reason which is to present Hussein from providing weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Here's why:

In 1992 Paul Wolfowitz, who is now the
Deputy Secretary of Defense wrote a paper for
Defense Planning Guidance on America's military posture toward the world. Quoting the frontline website "The draft said that containment was an old idea, a relic of the cold war. It advocated that America should maintain military strength beyond challenge and use it to preempt provocations from rogue states with weapons of mass destruction. And it stated that, if necessary, the U.S. should be prepared to act alone. Leaked to the press, Wolfowitz's draft was rewritten and softened by then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney."
Exerpts of the paper can be found here:

Basically Wolfowitz is arguing that the U.S. should remain unchallenged in any reason and should use unilateral force to maintain hegemony. THis is before 9/11 and the apparent threat of Al-Quaida. The hawks in the Bush administration wanted to acti unilaterally and pre-emptively before 9/11. Before 9/11 these ideas were to radical. 9/11 gives the Bush hawks the cover to do what they have been wanting to do since 1992--dominate the world. This appears to be exactly what Bush wants to do in Iraq. Take out Hussein before he becomes to powerful. Not surprisingly, other countries are not receptive to the idea of the U.S. acting as a unilateral hegemon.

One also has to ask who is next after Iraq? More importanly, why is diplomacy okay for N. Korea, a country who admits they are building weapons of mass destruction, who we caught selling missiles to the Yemenis?

U.S. policy is to remain the preeminent power and to act unilaterally. WHy would the French or anybody else want to go along with that?

03-07-2003, 06:49 AM
I agree with mr_punk's evaluation, with one amendment. China, Pakistan, Egypt, and all were not ostensibly state-supportive of terrorist attacks against the U.S. in September 2001.

another noble reason. the alleged connection between
al-qaeda and iraq isn't a cause of concern for me. one
man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

did you ever hear of "Camp Libertad" in Miami? or the
"Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation"
formerly known as the "School ofthe Americas" in Fort Benning,
Georgia? we trained a lot (and continue to) of "freedom fighters"
at those institutions. or how about those times when we send
in CIA "advisors" or Special Forces troops to faraway lands
to train indigenous soldiers. those troops are not receiving training in freedom and
democracy,i can assure you. you can't cry foul when your opponent uses
the same tactics as you do.

G.Bush,Sr had some very valid reasons for not
ending Saddam's rule. basically,he didn't have an end
game beyond stopping the aggression of iraq. this
administration,probably had an end game from day one.
however, it methods of achieving those objectives have
has been a complete and total disaster from a political and
diplomatic standpoint. while hubristic comments like, "axis of evil",
"either you're with us or against us", or "we'll go it alone" may
play well to the home team. that message receives a chilly
reception outside of it's borders.

... But think about the implications of what you're
saying. You're saying that the leaders of other
nations are buyable. And that is not an acceptable proposition.

- Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman, expressing an noble idea.

(enormous laughter erupts from the white house press corps)

Ari walks out and the press conference abruptly ends.

03-07-2003, 11:05 AM
I have gone back and forth with my opinion on the war. I now believe Hussein needs to go with or without war. I have gotten very tired of Iraq playing the rest of the world as fools. Seventeen resolutions have been past over the past twelve years to get Iraq to disarm and Hussein has thumbed his nose at everyone. He has become a master at stringing everyone one out until he feels we are on the verge of war then he will capitulate enough to buy himself one or two more weeks. The United Nations should not have passed these resolutions if they did not plan on enforcing them. I have to agree with Bush in that if the U.N. does not stand by its word it will be irrelevant.

As for the people that say if we attack we will make the terrorist mad and they may attack. May question would be what war where we in September 11 when over 3000 lives were taken. The fact is the terrorist may or may not attack either way. We can not afford to live in fear of them. I heard an analogy that I agree with. If you have a nest a rattlesnakes in your basement are you just going stay away and HOPE they do not come up the stairs ? I would say most people would try to exterminate all the snake. Yes they may get mad after you kill the first, but you keep at till they are all gone.

03-07-2003, 11:54 AM
We americans have short memories.... Have we already forgoten how violated we felt when our country was attacked, How sorrowfull we were when 3000 of our neighbors were killed.

"Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord"
"Vengence is sweat, sayeth Chuck"

***** NEVER FORGET 9-11 *******

03-08-2003, 07:55 AM
I want to buy a jet boat with a Big Block 454, and I want to put a matching 454 in my El Camino, so we need to get this oil thing figured out quick! I spent $35 at the pump last night just to take my car to the track, and it sucked. The cost of gas is cutting into my disposable income (i.e. Strip Club Cash!)