Recreation War in Iraq protest.

Personally I'd say the evidence saying that Saddam has WMD's is pretty strong. Did you hear the Powell tape. It was hilarious. Two Iraqi guys telling each other not to mention that they were moving Nerv gas because the line might not be secure.

You know some CIA guy about split a gut when he was listening in.

Saddam is making a mockery of the UN. Personally I find it dispicable that the USA is lambasted by UN members for trying to defend UN resolutions.

 

I heard this on the radio on the way to class, I though it was soooooo true. The problem with these Anti war people are that they are going after the wrong guy. If you don't want war, you have to eliminate people like Hussain and Bin Ladin, not Bush. You can't just bend over and say "naughty naughty boy" either. Look at what the Israelies would do, they activly go after and pursue who they know as the foe. When they started moving forward, raiding camps and taking ground. There were no terrorist attacks on them. However the UN complained and they had to stop and recede, then guess what. People with bombs started walking the streets again. Terrorists will not stop on their own accord, you have to make them stop.

 

I must agree with Phalanx.

Also, I can understand Germany's decision to avoid war. But why France? Because Chirac is a chauvinistic hypocrit who extracts advantages from the difficulties of other nations.

Don't start me on France.

The only thing that I have to say in this response is that Chirac thinks he is an influential figure in the world. The reality is that his country has lost whatever credibility they had 80 odd years ago as a superpower. The majority of European countries which have taken a stance has sided with America. And at this rate, that will continue to be the case. Whatever misperception that people might have of France as a European or global superpower should be clarified.

 

i totally agree with you Bloodberry..i really dont like it

 

Despite agreeing or disagreeing with the war, I think we should pray for the service men and women who are putting their lives on the line.

Here's something to ponder:

It's the soldier not the reporter who gives you the freedom of the press.

It's the soldier not the poet who gives you the freedom of speech.

It's the soldier not the campus organizer who allows you to demonstrate.

It's the soldier who salutes the flag, serves the flag, whose coffin is draped with the flag that allows the protester to burn the flag!

 

I read that somewere but couldn't find it (curses). It still is truthful tho. All you anti war protestors could only do what you do because the military is there to make sure that you can (blah, try and make sense of that, i'm a little off right now). I said this earlyer and I say it now, I support the war and if duty calls (if it becomes really big, WWIII in other words) i'll be a marine. The Army has no pride and i'm not gonna wait for my number to be drawn. I'd be a member of what I support (of course, i'm not religious fanatic or anything, just saying that I'd participate in what I uphold).

Either way, no matter who protests what now. War is going to happen. They are planning it out and this stuff takes a few months (look at Desert Stom). But the more months of planning result in almost fantastic results (again, look at the first 10 hours of Desert Storm. That is some clever stuff they did).

 

artemis836, I agree with what your saying to an extent but the soliders are only carring out orders and the constitution gives us those freedoms. there arleady set for us. we can thank our forefathers for our freedoms.

but i really do think that we need to be thankfull for those whoare fighting for us. and thank full for everyting..and pray for everones saftey.

 

Lies lies lies. Completely. It may be possible that the leaders of the countries might be saying they follow bush, but the people will be extremely pissed if they go to war. Like in this country, yesterday 2% of the whole country(including me) went to march against the war. That's an unbelievable amount, and there was a lot of anti-ahernism(our taoseach/prime minister). I'm almost certain that feeling is shared by the other european countries.

Bull***t again. Especialy in this country. If there were no soldiers, why would we need soldiers. All they do is kill other soldiers(hopefuly). Soldiers are just ordinary people too, in past wars often just drafted from the general populus. Don't romanticise soldiers, their only purpose is to kill. This is not a noble thing. Every person is an individual, once they die, they're gone forever. People's time is short enough without people killing each other. It's all bad ****.

 

so true..the military has nothing to do with your rights to do things..just because they go around killing people who are on the other side of the war does not mean that now we have more rights or have kept the same rights. that is in the hands of our leaders. not the military...your average soilder has no other power than to shoot and kill.

 

Well how would you recommend de-arming the world? Who goes first? So if we get rid of our military and start trying to talk reasonably with the rest of the world, they all will listen? Comon, this is not some fairy tale magic land we are speaking of. Not everybody in the world is nice, fair, understanding and reasonable. Unfortunatly there seems to be a hell of a lot of them in power all over the world. The world is not a nice place, the U.S. Japan and Great Britian tried to disarm their Navies after world war one. But look what happened, Japan and the U.S. duked it out in some of the largest Naval battles in history (as far as tonnage) while Britian and Germany had their games of "hide the Battleships" in the North sea not to mention the fact that Britian nearly got strangled (again) by the Submarine fleets of Germany. Who's to tell that everyone will gladfully disarm?

 

that may be true...altho if we disarm everyone there will be nothing to be worried about..and as far as who goes first..the most dangerous countries down to the least dangerous...and if you get all of the world leaders in a room for a length of time you should get some progress in world peace it only makes sense. im not trying to live in a "fairy tale" world. in case you didnt notice we all live on the same planet and were all humans. there fore we have at least something in comomon. you can stop being so jaded about everything and let something good happen for once in our lifetime.

 

I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but I believe that eveyone will not agree to disarm. Some countries might, but with others your not going to get anything at all. Am I right? Since when have 20 people all agreed to anything important, let alone 149 governments (I don't know exacty how many countries there are). I'm just saying that last time they tried a major disarmement, it had the opposite effect. Most of Europe was too weak and Hitler just rolled on through, who's to say that someone else won't build up a secret army? Better yet, how would you enforce and make sure someone is following up their end of the bargin and disarming? Weapons inspectors?

 

I agree with Phalanx.

To quote a friend of mine:

"If everyone was a pacifist I could conquer this whole stupid planet with a butter knife."

 

yes weapon inspectors. if we know that there is a risk country then we need to watch them with weapons inspectors. we can form a larger band of countrys and hold strong against the oposing countrys. if we work in numbers and we work towards peace it should work..all we need to do is work towards peace i know that we all can do it..even if takes some time.

 

But isn't that what is happening, I mean, the U.S. is trying to win support from the UN and already has help from the EU. Bush wanted to go right in and take care of everything right away, thank god Powell calmed him down and decided to go through the UN to get support. Also, i'm not quite sure what Europe's position is. One minute I heard they are against the war, the next I heard they are in support. Does anyone know where they really stand?

 

I'm just gonna toss in my thoughts:

Bush is waging war on Iraq because he wants to get re-elected, he wants to fullfill Daddy's wishes... oh hell, there's a whole list of stupid reasons. You know what?

We should totally get Clinton back! He was like, a cool prez, he was anti-war, he was like, making homies with all the other nations... yeah. Ehehehehe... ^^;;

 

Clinton was anti-war?

Then why did he attack Kosovo and conduct two bombing raids on Iraq.

 

The fact that 2% of your country went to the march does not mean that your government is against the disarming of Saddam Hussein. The link you tried to establish between your government policies and a 2% minority's opinion is tenuous.

In this country, nearly 400,000 people attended the anti-war march. And yet, this country supports war. So again, your argument has been disarmed.

Ever heard of the silent majority? You can't assume that the silent majority is in favour of peaceniks because you are in favour of their stance.

And isn't it interesting how peaceniks are always selective in their response to this issue? The more-moral-than-thou stance in the 1930s resulted in WW2. If the war-is-not-the-answer pacifist views had ultimately prevailed in 1939, this world would had been ruled by facists! Don't some people ever learn?

I'm sure the peaceniks here are aware of the disaster that appeasement has resulted in the 1930s. If they aren't, then obviously they aren't learned enough to rebut the viewpoints of considered posters like Phalanx. I am happy to read and examine the validity of any counter-argument to the disaster of appeasement, but if people decide to avoid this sub-topic then don't waste my time. ^_^

 

So let's assume that every national leader takes the high moral ground and decides to disarm. Let's assume that nobody is going to be sceptical about the auspicious claims of another nation. Let's assume that the deliquents will not surreptitiously re-arm or not completely disarm.

If we make these assumptions, then such impervious actions do indeed make sense. And I must express consent over the fact that you are not living in fairy-tale land.