Anti-War Demonstration in NYC & around the world - 2/15/03

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
User avatar
at99
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 11:00 pm
Contact:

Postby at99 » Sat Feb 15, 2003 12:40 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave



I have no qualms about using the military to look after the national interests of the United States. I have no qualms about invading another country pre-emptively to eliminate an imminent threat. However, I do not believe that a war in Iraq is in our best interests. I do not believe that the 1990 Gulf War was about anything other than oil. I think if Dubya sends a quarter of a million American soldiers to the middle east, he will send a quarter of a million Muslims into fringe organisations like Al-Qaeda , Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiah.

I think that Dubya's war will turn into a recruiting coup for men like Osama bin Laden and give a generation of disenfranchised Muslims a reason to become freedom fighters . . . er, terrorists.


You said the last gulf war was really about war. Can you prove this? I dont believe the people of Kuwait would agree. What else could the world do, just let Iraq invade? The old conspiracy cry of oil is a little hard to believe.

What should the US do with Iraq nothing?
The Iraq problem could be seen as
'somebody who murdered someone with a load of guns, he promised not to do it again and promised to hand over his weapons , hid a few guns and was left alone until some pesky policeman came a knocking'.
Hi y'all

User avatar
Tamerlane
Posts: 4554
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: The land of Oz
Contact:

Postby Tamerlane » Sat Feb 15, 2003 1:51 am

Originally posted by at99
You said the last gulf war was really about war. Can you prove this? I dont believe the people of Kuwait would agree. What else could the world do, just let Iraq invade? The old conspiracy cry of oil is a little hard to believe.


Actually it more or less was about oil. Iraq's invasion was specifically centered around oil, citing the Ratqa oil fields of being an extension of the Rumalia field located in southern Iraq and that Kuwait was stealing its oil worth billions. Kuwait holds around 9% of the world oil reserves and if Iraq held on to its land, we would of seen a return to the energy crisis experienced in the 1970's. Prior to Operation Desert Storm, US troops were moved into Saudi Arabia to protect her fields from being seized by the Iraqi defence force. By 1990, Iraq had the fifth largest army in the world and were a considerable threat to the Middle East region.
!

User avatar
at99
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 11:00 pm
Contact:

Postby at99 » Sat Feb 15, 2003 1:59 am

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Actually it more or less was about oil. Iraq's invasion was specifically centered around oil, citing the Ratqa oil fields of being an extension of the Rumalia field located in southern Iraq and that Kuwait was stealing its oil worth billions. Kuwait holds around 9% of the world oil reserves and if Iraq held on to its land, we would of seen a return to the energy crisis experienced in the 1970's. Prior to Operation Desert Storm, US troops were moved into Saudi Arabia to protect her fields from being seized by the Iraqi defence force. By 1990, Iraq had the fifth largest army in the world and were a considerable threat to the Middle East region.


What are you getting at here?
Hi y'all

User avatar
Tamerlane
Posts: 4554
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: The land of Oz
Contact:

Postby Tamerlane » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:16 am

You posted that "The old conspiracy cry of oil is a little hard to believe." in respect to the gulf war. I'm just bringing across my opnion that it was about oil, there were actually 18 other incidents during 1990 in which the US could of gotten involved to the extent that it was against Iraq. However as HLD stated, its national interest was with the Middle East at that time. Sorry about the other vague post. :rolleyes:

EDIT- We seem to be getting slightly off topic.
!

User avatar
Osiris
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: The Underworld
Contact:

Postby Osiris » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:40 am

Good luck to all involved in the protests! :cool:

User avatar
Littiz
Posts: 1465
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The Valley
Contact:

Postby Littiz » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:57 am

US are not interested in oil, they want a hold in the Middle-East, to get more control.
Judge as you want, but oil isn't the main issue here.

Anyway, I really can't see why people always try to find "reasons" behind terrorism.
I agree with Chanak with my whole heart!
There are social reasons of course, there are reasons for *everything*.
This doesn't change the fact that those are beasts.
When you enter a schoolbus full of children to let yourself blow, or when you enter a
kibbutz to fire upon children on purpose (do you remember this episode?)
, you *are* a beast.
If you were really a "freedom fighter", you would stop upon seeing the children in front of you.

And no, Voodoo Dali, I do not see any similiraty with the victims of "common" wars.
With the exception of Hiroshima, probably.
Really aren't you shocked by the fact that these people kill randomly
with the precise and exclusive intent to kill randomly as many civilians as they can???

And if I am really to find some reasons behind those acts, I find them more in the propaganda
that some nations do to promote this kind of terrorism, and in the expectations of women
as sex-slaves in the terrorists' afterlife.

Won't say anymore.
BG2 - ToB Refinements Mod: Website

BG2 - ToB Refinements Mod: Forum and announcements

"Ever forward, my darling wind..."

User avatar
Osiris
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: The Underworld
Contact:

Postby Osiris » Sat Feb 15, 2003 3:05 am

Originally posted by Littiz
US are not interested in oil, they want a hold in the Middle-East, to get more control.
Judge as you want, but oil isn't the main issue here.


So why is the "hold in the Middle-East" so important then? :cool:

User avatar
Littiz
Posts: 1465
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The Valley
Contact:

Postby Littiz » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:25 am

These are old arguments.
Oil can be found practically anywhere, even in Italy, you just have to dig a little
deeper and spend a little more.
Of course costs have to be taken in consideration, but the oil *from Iraq* isn't so
crucial (maybe it is for France and Germany) to survival.

@Osiris, the world is not divided in "oiled" and "non-oiled".
There are many things that nations may desire: decisional power, the ability to influence,
even culturally, a part of the world considered instable and "dangerous", political strenght...
Oil can be part of all of these, but it isn't the only aspect anyway.

There were wars even *before* oil was extracted at all...
BG2 - ToB Refinements Mod: Website

BG2 - ToB Refinements Mod: Forum and announcements

"Ever forward, my darling wind..."

User avatar
at99
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 11:00 pm
Contact:

Postby at99 » Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:48 am

Tony Blairs speech was very,very impressive.
The Best so far by anyone on this topic!
Hi y'all

User avatar
Der-draigen
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 11:00 pm
Location: A nice place in New England
Contact:

Postby Der-draigen » Sat Feb 15, 2003 9:41 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, yet we consider it a defining moment in the American Revolution (Rebellion to others).


Think the Tea Party was bad? We Rhode Islanders pride ourselves on the burning of the Gaspee, a British ship assigned to enforce trade regulations, taxes on imports & exports and so forth. A bunch of guys rowed from Bristol harbor one night, found the Gaspee, shot the lieutenant and burned the ship into the water. That was before the Tea Party, and makes that event look rather like...well, a tea party ;)

I only bring it up to emphasize your very good point that terrorism is really all a matter of perspective. Certainly King George must have thought that Rhode Island was made up of a bunch of evil terrorists...
"I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."

"So do all who live to see such times; but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."

User avatar
Tybaltus
Posts: 10341
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Postby Tybaltus » Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:21 am

True....maybe I was being a bit forward by saying it is evil. But when it can have such escalated casualties of innocents, thats the point where I find it evil.

Certainly, I agree with CE, HLD, DD, and Audace. Yes.

But its when death can only be associated by a number, as opposed to the individuals, is when it gets real scary.
“Caw, Caw!” The call of the wild calls you. Are you listening? Do you dare challenge their power? Do you dare invade? Nature will always triumph in the end.

[color=sky blue]I know that I die gracefully in vain. I know inside detiorates in pain.[/color]-Razed in Black

User avatar
ThorinOakensfield
Posts: 2523
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Heaven
Contact:

Postby ThorinOakensfield » Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:43 am

I won't be going, but my sister will be going to NYC. She left her college, Skidmore (in upstate New York), this morning and has arrived in NYC by now, along with many other college students.

People are protesting all over the world.
[url="http://www.svelmoe.dk/blade/index.htm"]Blades of Banshee[/url] Are you up to the challenge?

I AM GOD

User avatar
Gruntboy
Posts: 4574
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: London, UK.
Contact:

Postby Gruntboy » Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:10 am

Originally posted by Der-draigen
Never said you didn't. Perhaps you overlooked the word "respectfully" in my post to which you refer.

I wasn't aware that this forum was closed to dissenting opinions. If you so strongly defend your right to to express your own opinion, why do you take issue with me expressing mine?


Naw, it was the immediate strong response to what was a simple rejection of an offer. I ask again, am I not allowed to do that without someone strongly disagreeing with me in a thread whose aim was to promote the rallies, not discuss the war?

You didn't seem to be expressing your opinion, just attacking mine.

Aeh, the whole thread has devolved into what I said it would - entrenched positions. The forum isn't closed as per your sarcastic comment, I just don't see the point of discussing this issue - look where this thread is going. Isn't that what the marchers are doing? Why discuss the issue when you have voted these people in in the first place and you disagree with something they do.

I hope you'll all be organising "stop North Korean nuclear aggression" rallies. On the other hand I don't see any counter marches called "we love bombing Iraqi children". :(
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his pants for his friends."

Enchantress is my Goddess.

Few survive in the Heart of Fury...
Gamebanshee: [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/"]Make your gaming scream![/url]

User avatar
Morlock
Posts: 1363
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Contact:

Postby Morlock » Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:47 am

One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I do not understand what would make someone strap a bomb to their body and detonate it in a crowded marketplace or fly a plane into a building full of people. However, I do understand that there are some causes and ideals that make people do things that seem crazy (to me at least), but at the same time, makes them feel heroic.


That is not the case in a lot of situations in here. A teenage female would be suicide bomber was caughty before she could explode herself, and said that she was raped by Hamas people and forced into being a suicide bomber by fear of the rape getting out.
The Iraqi government has been paying 25,000 dollars a year to several suicide bomber's families as insentive.
There have been at least 4 Palestinian teenagers killed by family members, including one by his father, for refusing to become a suicide bomber.
Mixed in with a promise of as many lays as you want in the next world.

To me this sounds as if ideals and heroism are thrown in as pressure to blow yourself up.


Does the end, or in this case, cause, justify the means?

I know that many Israeli groups, sure enough known as Freedom fighters were known to the British as "Terrorists".
So many people say the same thing applies to the Palestinian people.
But how on earth could you compare two nations, both who, in the begining had no choice but to use gurrilla tactics, considering there targets.
The L"ehi- which in hebrew literaly stands for 'Israel's freedom fighters' blew up the King David hotel- which was vacated to be the British army head quarters- attacking and killing 90+ British soldiers.
One of the Palestinian -and I feel totaly justified in using this word- Terrorist groups blows up 27 people sitting down for passover dinner.

There certainly can be a difference between Washington and Davis, just like there can be one between Arafat and Begin, on more than the did they win their war.


Australia isn't living under the constant threat of Saddam. Neither is Canada. Neither is France. Neither is the US.
I am. I spent this week getting a room in my house sealed, buying supplies, and making sure my gas mask works. To me, Iraq represents an immidiate threat, not as a boiling pot for future terrorists, but as someone who feels that the world is a better place without me in it, and may be able to act on those feelings.

I don't know if war is the answer- but I'm already living under constant threat of the bus I take everyday blowing up, or the mall I go to being shot up. I don't need to be worried about a biological warhead falling on my house.
And I'm tired of everyone who doesn't live under these threats saying war is wrong. Some wars are worth fighting. The Abolution of slavery was worth fighting for. Freeing the world of Nazism was worth fighting for. Why is getting rid of a man who's full of hate and anger towards the world, and who may be making weapons of mass distruction -which target civilians- not worth fighting for.
"Veni,Vidi,vici!"
(I came,I saw,I conquered!) Julius Ceasar

User avatar
Scayde
Posts: 8739
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:05 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Postby Scayde » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:04 pm

Re: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

Originally posted by Morlock
That is not the case in a lot of situations in here. A teenage female would be suicide bomber was caughty before she could explode herself, and said that she was raped by Hamas people and forced into being a suicide bomber by fear of the rape getting out.
The Iraqi government has been paying 25,000 dollars a year to several suicide bomber's families as insentive.
There have been at least 4 Palestinian teenagers killed by family members, including one by his father, for refusing to become a suicide bomber.
Mixed in with a promise of as many lays as you want in the next world.

To me this sounds as if ideals and heroism are thrown in as pressure to blow yourself up.


Does the end, or in this case, cause, justify the means?

I know that many Israeli groups, sure enough known as Freedom fighters were known to the British as "Terrorists".
So many people say the same thing applies to the Palestinian people.
But how on earth could you compare two nations, both who, in the begining had no choice but to use gurrilla tactics, considering there targets.
The L"ehi- which in hebrew literaly stands for 'Israel's freedom fighters' blew up the King David hotel- which was vacated to be the British army head quarters- attacking and killing 90+ British soldiers.
One of the Palestinian -and I feel totaly justified in using this word- [b]Terrorist
groups blows up 27 people sitting down for passover dinner.

There certainly can be a difference between Washington and Davis, just like there can be one between Arafat and Begin, on more than the did they win their war.


Australia isn't living under the constant threat of Saddam. Neither is Canada. Neither is France. Neither is the US.
I am. I spent this week getting a room in my house sealed, buying supplies, and making sure my gas mask works. To me, Iraq represents an immidiate threat, not as a boiling pot for future terrorists, but as someone who feels that the world is a better place without me in it, and may be able to act on those feelings.

I don't know if war is the answer- but I'm already living under constant threat of the bus I take everyday blowing up, or the mall I go to being shot up. I don't need to be worried about a biological warhead falling on my house.
And I'm tired of everyone who doesn't live under these threats saying war is wrong. Some wars are worth fighting. The Abolution of slavery was worth fighting for. Freeing the world of Nazism was worth fighting for. Why is getting rid of a man who's full of hate and anger towards the world, and who may be making weapons of mass distruction -which target civilians- not worth fighting for. [/b]


@Morlock: Thank you for posting this...*HUG*.I know it had tobe difficult for you. I am so glad that you have given us a very real glimps of this story from your eyes. You and your family and countrymen are in my thoughts and prayers. I pray too for the terrorists. That they may see that this sensless violence is not the means to secure their objectives. This is my fervent hope.

Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde)

The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong

User avatar
Nippy
Posts: 5085
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Reading, England
Contact:

Postby Nippy » Sat Feb 15, 2003 3:09 pm

Re: Re: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

Originally posted by Scayde
@Morlock: Thank you for posting this...*HUG*.I know it had tobe difficult for you. I am so glad that you have given us a very real glimps of this story from your eyes. You and your family and countrymen are in my thoughts and prayers. I pray too for the terrorists. That they may see that this sensless violence is not the means to secure their objectives. This is my fervent hope.


I agree completely with Scayde, Morlock, and I hope that you will be safe and sound. Keep safe.

To those of us who are saying war is wrong, lets all read what Morlock has said and understand that what we are talking about here is a huge risk to human life - and it's something that must and will be stopped.
Perverteer Paladin

User avatar
Der-draigen
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 11:00 pm
Location: A nice place in New England
Contact:

Postby Der-draigen » Sat Feb 15, 2003 3:57 pm

Re: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter."

Originally posted by Morlock
Australia isn't living under the constant threat of Saddam. Neither is Canada. Neither is France. Neither is the US.
I am. I spent this week getting a room in my house sealed, buying supplies, and making sure my gas mask works. To me, Iraq represents an immidiate threat, not as a boiling pot for future terrorists, but as someone who feels that the world is a better place without me in it, and may be able to act on those feelings...And I'm tired of everyone who doesn't live under these threats saying war is wrong.


For what it's worth, my prayers are with you, as they are with all people who live under the constant threat of violence and warfare. And as a matter of fact, that group does now include the United States.

Loads of people in the US have been doing the exact same thing -- taping up windows, buying gas masks, etc. etc. -- over the past several days. After 9/11/01, I think everyone in this country DOES feel as if they're living under a constant threat from Bin Laden, Saddam, and everyone else who is a terrorist or who sponsors terrorism. Oceans do not protect this country any more, and therapists' offices are crammed to the brim with people who are freaking out because they can't cope with the knowledge that the US is no longer the safe haven it used to be.

I'm currently living in Washington, DC. You think I'm not terrified for my life evey day? I am. If any place in the US is going to get hit, it's going to be here. My mother works on a military base. You think I'm not terrified for her life every day, hoping to God that I get her accustomed phone call?

Don't tell us we're not living under a constant threat, when it's clear that we are.

I'm still against the war, and my reason is written below.


Some wars [b]are worth fighting. The Abolution of slavery was worth fighting for. Freeing the world of Nazism was worth fighting for. Why is getting rid of a man who's full of hate and anger towards the world, and who may be making weapons of mass distruction -which target civilians- not worth fighting for. [/b]


The American Civil War was not fought to free slaves. Lots of people won't like reading that, but it's the truth. That war was mostly fought for economic reasons and because slavery was the backbone of the Southern economy, it was an issue. But the war was not fought because the "tolerant", "humanitarian" North said "Let's go free the slaves."

WWII wasn't fought to get rid of the concentration camps, either. Jan Karski tried to tell Churchill and Roosevelt about the camps, but they either didn't believe him or didn't care. Nazi horrors were not revealed to the world until the Allies went in and found and liberated the camps.

We have to back up for a second and think: This is not the good old days of conventional warfare, when an army went in with guns and that was it. The METHODS of warfare in our era absolutely demand that we commit ourselves to seeking and finding every possible alternative to warfare; and only when all those alternatives are completely exhausted can we justify starting a war. The weapons we now have -- think about it, they're called Weapons of Mass Destruction for a reason -- should actually lead the world to avert warfare and pursue peace; they should not inspire us to use them -- or to create and/or foster a situation where others might claim a reason to use them.

A war against Iraq will further increase terrorist activity against the US -- and its allies -- by provoking retaliation. We are on the verge of a major global meltdown; we are on the verge of destroying this planet if we pursue this war. That's no exaggeration. I empathize -- oh, believe me, I do empathize -- with those who say they want to keep their lives. I want the same thing. Everyone who's human wants that. Like Nippy said above -- terrorism is a massive risk to human life. There is no denying that. I would add that it is a risk that includes all life on this planet. A war on the scale this war promises to be is a much bigger risk. And that is precisely the reason why this war must not be fought, unless it is proven beyond the slightest doubt that there is absolutely no other option.

I'm not denying that Saddam Hussien is a bad guy. I'm not denying that something needs to be done; I'm not saying that the world should just sit back and let him stockpile. As a matter of fact, no one who's protesting war is saying that either. But I am saying there has got to be a better solution than global warfare. For all our sakes, there has to be.
"I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."

"So do all who live to see such times; but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."

User avatar
at99
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 11:00 pm
Contact:

Postby at99 » Sat Feb 15, 2003 4:24 pm

I think the point with this anti-war thing is this. People who are against war prefer not seeing innocent people being killed and would like a better way to go (fair enough).

If we dont stop sadam and keep the status quo (so-called containment) there is a problem, many more innocent people will die under his regime anyway. A war is risky and is no guarentee of working but its a chance if all else fails.
The resolution 1441 says 'If sadam fails to disarm then face serious consequences' his so-called last chance note given months ago. Technically their still can be a UN legal war with this.

There is a political by-play going on with nations 'due to a weak UN' which overshadows the moral question

Unless a decent alternative to war can be found -

Many thousands will die if we 'do nothing' and preserve the status quo. Take a chance and get rid of sadam and save lives.

Which way?(maybe the anti-war people could be backing the wrong horse)
Hi y'all

User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Postby Mr Sleep » Sat Feb 15, 2003 4:34 pm

Originally posted by at99
John Howard and Tony Blair are decent people who would never want war if it was not needed.


I can't speak for Howard but Blair is a liar, I know this isn't new for a politician but Blair is a manipulative person who has used his place of power for ulterior motives. That is provable, his cabinet isn't much better, a decent person is all relative but I don't think that Blair is one of them.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.

User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Postby Mr Sleep » Sat Feb 15, 2003 4:40 pm

Originally posted by Gruntboy
I hope you'll all be organising "stop North Korean nuclear aggression" rallies.


Pretty much sums a great deal of the issues up for me, North Korea (as stated previously) are several times the problem that Iraq are but nothing is being done, which strikes me as a little strange, but then no one exactly deposes Mugawbe either. You can't have a war on terror and then forget about half the terrorists and those half are significantly more dangerous in my opinion.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.