Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

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

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
User avatar
VoodooDali
Posts: 1992
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Spanking Witch King
Contact:

Post by VoodooDali »

Originally posted by Chanak
Protests have served causes well in the past. It was an important part of the American Civil Rights movement in the late 50's and 60's...and they did achieve something indeed. I have a tremendous amount of respect for those who are willing to work hard to support something that they believe in. I hope the rallies go without incident as well, and that you all return to your homes and families safely.

Re: security concerns....this is where I begin to feel uncomfortable. Personally, I am against limitations of personal freedom, regardless of the cause it is for. I can see why they might cite this as a reason for concern, as terrorists might possibly use it as a window of opportunity...still, IMO they are playing right into the hands of those who wish ill will by allowing fear to rule the day. It has an onimous feel to it, one which I don't like at all.


Chanak - we agree about something once in a while... I think that the possibility of violence - of a repeat of the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention tragedy- is very real because there will be so many people trapped in a very small area around the UN. I have the feeling that Bloomberg and the NYPD are minimizing the amount of people who will show up. Also, I am meeting with other groups, such as Vietnam Veterans Against the War, in front of the NY Public Library at 11 AM and we are marching to the rally from there. I don't exactly understand how legal that is. It occurred to me that it is possible I might get arrested for practicing my Right to Assemble!

A little history of the 1968 Protest (if you've ever seen footage of this - which they still don't show in classrooms or on TV, you would be deeply shocked - the violence is appalling. I recommend a movie called Medium Cool which was filmed during the riots):
Events Leading up the 1968 Convention Riots
The primary cause of the demonstrations and the subsequent riots during the 1968 Chicago convention was opposition to the Vietnam War. Young peace activists had met at a camp in Lake Villa, Illinois on March 23 to plan a protest march at the convention. Anti-war leaders including David Dellinger (editor of Liberation magazine and chairman of the National Mobilization Committee to End War in Vietnam) Rennie Davis, head of the Center for Radical Research and a leader of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Vernon Grizzard, a draft resistance leader, and Tom Hayden (also a leader of the Students for a Democratic Society) coordinated efforts with over 100 anti-war groups.

Groups related to this effort also planned events. Jerry Rubin (a former associate of Dellinger) and Abbie Hoffman (both leaders of the Youth International Party (YIPPIES) planned a Youth Festival with the goal of bringing 100,000 young adults to Chicago. They tried to get a permit from Chicago to hold a YIPPIE convention. The permit was denied, but the YIPPIES still came.

The Riots
Outside the official convention proceedings, anti-war demonstrators clashed with 11,900 Chicago police, 7500 Army troops, 7500 Illinois National Guardsmen and 1000 Secret Service agents over 5 days.

The violence centered on two things: the Chicago police forcing protesters out of areas where they were not permitted to be; and protesters clashing with police, and their reinforcements, as they tried to march to the convention site.

The violence began Sunday August 25th. Anti-war leaders had tried to get permits from the city to sleep in Lincoln park and to demonstrate outside of the convention site. Those permit requests were denied, although the city did offer them a permit to protest miles away from the Amphitheater But the protesters were undeterred. When the park was officially closed, Chicago police bombed protesters with tear gas and moved in with billy-clubs to forcibly remove them from the park. Along with the many injuries to anti-war protesters, 17 reporters were attacked by police (including Hal Bruno, who was then a reporter for Newsweek and is now political director for ABC.) Throughout the convention, police would see the press as the enemy. Subsequent battles between police and protesters occurred nightly in Lincoln Park and Grant Park.

Also present that first night and throughout the convention were the famous Beat artists Allen Ginsberg and William Burroughs and French poet Jean Genet. Most events and protests featured speeches from Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.

The worst day of protesting was Wednesday, and was dubbed the "Battle of Michigan Avenue." Protesters were stopped in their march to the convention site and the media recorded graphic violence on the part of the Chicago police. Many innocent bystanders, reporters and doctors offering medical help were severely beaten by the police. Many hotels where the delegates were staying were affected by the riots. Fumes from the tear gas used by the police and "stink bombs" thrown by the protesters drifted into the buildings. (One of those affected was the Conrad Hilton, the headquarters for the Democratic party and the press.)

Another major clash occurred on the final day of the convention, when protesters tried once again to reach the convention center. They were twice turned away. A barricade was put up around the convention center to prevent anyone without credentials from entering the facility.

When the convention was finally over, the Chicago police reported 589 arrests had been made and 119 police and 100 protesters were injured. The riots, which were widely covered by the media, led to a government funded study to determine the cause of the violence. The study was led by Daniel Walker, a Democratic businessman from Illinois who would ran successfully for governor in Illinois in 1972. The study placed most of the blame on the Chicago police. Mayor Daley disagreed with the report and issued the Chicago police a pay raise.

The Aftermath
On March 20, 1969, a Chicago grand jury indicted eight police officers and eight civilians in connection with the disorders during the Democratic convention. The eight civilians, dubbed the "Chicago 8," were the first persons to be charged under provisions of the 1968 Civil Rights act, which made it a federal crime to cross state lines to incite a riot. David Dellinger was chairman of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam. Rennie Davis and Tom Hayden were members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin were leaders of the Youth International Party (YIPPIES). Lee Weiner was a research assistant at Northwestern University. John Froines was a professor at the University at the University of Oregon. Bobby Seale was a founder of the Black Panthers.

So your brother's bound and gagged
And they've chained him to a chair
Won't you please come to chicago just to sing
In a land that's known as freedom how can such a thing be fair
won't you please come to chicago for the help that we can bring

The trial of the "Chicago 8" opened before Judge Julius Hoffman in Chicago on September 24, 1969. It was a circus. The defendents disrupted the trial and talked back to the judge. The defense attorneys repeatedly accused the judge of bias against them. Because of Seale's repeated courtroom outbursts, Judge Hoffman had ordered him gagged and chained to his chair on October 29. When the restraints were removed on November 3, Seale resumed his outburts, calling Hoffman a "racist," a "facist" and a "pig." Seale's trial was severed from the other seven on November 5, 1969 when Hoffman declared a mistrial on the conspiracy charges and sentenced him to four years in prison for contempt.

The long "Chicago 7" case finally went to the jury on February 14, 1970. The next day Judge Hoffman convicted all 7 defendents, plus defense attorneys William Kunstler and Leonard Weinglass, of contempt of court. (Kunstler had told the judge the trial was a "legal lynching" for which Judge Hoffman was "wholly responsible.") The jury returned its verdicts on February 18, 1970. Froines and Weiner were aquitted. Dellinger, Davis, Hayden, Hoffman and Ruben were convicted of crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot and giving inflammatory speeches to further their purpose. They were fined $5,000 each, plus court costs, and given five years in prison.
“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.” - Edgar Allen Poe
User avatar
Dottie
Posts: 4277
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 11:00 am
Location: Mindlessly floating around.
Contact:

Post by Dottie »

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Voodoo: Glad to hear you are joining too :) Btw it is not only female SYMers participating, my hubby Silur is also a SYMer (although a very infrequent poster) and he will be going too...as well as Dottie I would guess.
Yes, I will. :) Its still an interesting question @Voodoodali though. I've read in a swedish newspaper a while ago that the support for a war in sweden is much higher among men than woman. Does anyone have any idea why? preferably without the inclusion of stupid stereotypes. ;)

Regarding the anti-war article I must say I definatly dont like the focus of it... Its hardly like US army will pay the highest cost in this war, and the war should be stopped for entirely other reasons imo.

@Littiz: I think that another possible reason to why people (including me) react more towards a war started by US than a war started by USSR is that people in the western world tend to identify more with it. Or if not identify, atleast be more concerned and involved with its policies. If a war like this would be started by sweden I would be even more angry and suprised as it is not something I would expect from here, and I feel more involved in swedeish politics.
While others climb the mountains High, beneath the tree I love to lie
And watch the snails go whizzing by, It's foolish but it's fun
User avatar
VoodooDali
Posts: 1992
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Spanking Witch King
Contact:

Post by VoodooDali »

Originally posted by Dottie
Yes, I will. :) Its still an interesting question @Voodoodali though. I've read in a swedish newspaper a while ago that the support for a war in sweden is much higher among men than woman. Does anyone have any idea why? preferably without the inclusion of stupid stereotypes. ;)


I think that for women debate and negotiation are the first line of defense - since the physical option is usually not an option at all. For a lot of men, it's the other way around. An example of this is the lower rate of police mortality for female officers who respond to domestic violence calls (where the majority of police officers are killed) - they are more likely to respond with diplomatic solutions than physical ones. I'm not suggesting that women are inherently more peaceful, but just that because we are physically weaker, we rely on verbal means of resolving differences.
“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.” - Edgar Allen Poe
User avatar
Waverly
Posts: 3863
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Valinor
Contact:

Post by Waverly »

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Der-Dragen: Like you, I believe a war against Iraq now will increase terrorism targeted against the US/UK
I just wanted to clarify something here: the reaction of terrorists to war with Iraq, troops in Germany, or the choice of Australian wine over Napa Valley isn’t.. cannot be a consideration. Once we make “what will the terrorists think?” a valid question before doing anything we have endorsed one of their key objectives: influence without reason or parity on the daily lives of free people.

Just wanted to be clear there. That being said… protest away. Count me among those that don’t believe war should be used as just another diplomatic option. I’m particularly dismayed that Iraq would be allowed to plead it’s case through inspections while sabers are rattled in the background. Would not the very idea that they are being checked upon seem to indicate that the results should be the determining factor?

It’s like being guilty until you successfully prove a negative, and even then it’s subject to veto by a six-shooting Texan.
Then darkness took me, and I strayed out of thought and time
User avatar
Der-draigen
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 11:00 pm
Location: A nice place in New England
Contact:

Post by Der-draigen »

Originally posted by VoodooDali
Hey Der-draigen, Dragon Wench and CE - glad to hear you will be protesting, too!
Unfortunately there is no planned demonstration in my area. But I will be directing my thoughts and prayers toward peace :)
"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
Der-draigen
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 11:00 pm
Location: A nice place in New England
Contact:

Post by Der-draigen »

Originally posted by Waverly
I just wanted to clarify something here: the reaction of terrorists to war with Iraq, troops in Germany, or the choice of Australian wine over Napa Valley isn’t.. cannot be a consideration. Once we make “what will the terrorists think?” a valid question before doing anything we have endorsed one of their key objectives: influence without reason or parity on the daily lives of free people.
You definitely have a good point. At the same time though, I still think that the danger of biological/chemical warfare is a much larger consideration than choices made in daily life; since if terrorists are provoked into using whatever WMD's thay may possess, there will be no one left to make those daily choices. National and world security absolutely must be a consideration. That being the case, all possible options must be considered and exhausted before war is jumped into. It seems as though people (i.e. national leaders) have lost the ability to think creatively.
"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
Kayless
Posts: 5573
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Contact:

Post by Kayless »

Originally posted by Waverly
I just wanted to clarify something here: the reaction of terrorists to war with Iraq, troops in Germany, or the choice of Australian wine over Napa Valley isn’t.. cannot be a consideration. Once we make “what will the terrorists think?” a valid question before doing anything we have endorsed one of their key objectives: influence without reason or parity on the daily lives of free people.

Just got to say, ditto.
Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
User avatar
C Elegans
Posts: 9935
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The space within
Contact:

Post by C Elegans »

Originally posted by Waverly
I just wanted to clarify something here: the reaction of terrorists to war with Iraq, troops in Germany, or the choice of Australian wine over Napa Valley isn’t.. cannot be a consideration. Once we make “what will the terrorists think?” a valid question before doing anything we have endorsed one of their key objectives: influence without reason or parity on the daily lives of free people.
Oh, of course - for me, that is not at all the main reason why I object to a war against Iraq. My main concerns are:

1. War should not be used as a method to solve conflicts.
2. No countries should act as a "world-watcher". The UN is neither a very efficient nor a very well organised body to fill that role, but it is the best we currently have and such matters should be decided by the UN only.

However, that is arguments on a principal level - when one decide how to act, one must also evaluate the probability of the action to result in the consequences one wish to achive. And here is where considerations regarding the whole picture and the ultimate goal comes in. "What will the terrorist think" is not the concern here, but "what effects do we achieve, politically and socially".
Just wanted to be clear there. That being said… protest away. Count me among those that don’t believe war should be used as just another diplomatic option. I’m particularly dismayed that Iraq would be allowed to plead it’s case through inspections while sabers are rattled in the background. Would not the very idea that they are being checked upon seem to indicate that the results should be the determining factor?

It’s like being guilty until you successfully prove a negative, and even then it’s subject to veto by a six-shooting Texan.


I couldn't agree more to all of the above.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
User avatar
Gruntboy
Posts: 4574
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: London, UK.
Contact:

Post by Gruntboy »

I didn't want to start a debate about the rights and wrongs of this coming war. VooDoo asked if people would be attending the protests, I declined and stated my reasons.

I don't think this is the right place for debate that has been done to death between entrenched parties. So you disagree with me disagreeing, Der Draigen, you don't have to tell me that here. I have a right to my opinion no matter how strongly you feel about yours.

:mad:
"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
at99
Posts: 332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 11:00 pm
Contact:

Post by at99 »

I would like to pose a few points.

1. I dont think cyberspace is the place to really change peoples opinions on things (or you should not expect to), all you can do is just state your reasons.

2 France has reportedly $60 US Biliion contracts with Iraq. Germany has contracts to with Iraq

3 france / Germany are in the minority in Europe (with its stance by its leaders compared to other willing countries)

4 North Korea is hotting up, the chinese REFUSE to speak to NKorea and NKorea only wants to speak with the US (why). There is an opinion the Iraq situation has encouraged them to try get a good deal.

5 someone here said 'war is not the way to solve a conflict', anti-war people seem to get more emotional than rational. Maybe Hitler could have been stopped with peace rallies.

6 The world is different now after 9/11. In a completely different period in history where people are thinking of pre-emptive strikes to stop an mostly invisible threat. What to do ...
Hi y'all
User avatar
C Elegans
Posts: 9935
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: The space within
Contact:

Post by C Elegans »

Originally posted by at99
1. I dont think cyberspace is the place to really change peoples opinions on things (or you should not expect to), all you can do is just state your reasons.
IMO nobody should ever expect to change other people's opinions. Cyberspace discussion should no be qualitatively different from other forms of dicscussions.
2 France has reportedly $60 US Biliion contracts with Iraq. Germany has contracts to with Iraq
So? As opposed to the US and UK who have economic interests at all in the oil in the region? What is it you wish to say by stating the above?
3 france / Germany are in the minority in Europe (with its stance by its leaders compared to other willing countries)
First, In minority regarding what? In opposing an US/UK action without a UN mandat? Certainly no. In opposing a swift war and demanding more time for inspections? Certainly no. Read the reports of the European stance here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2698153.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2763831.stm

Second, what would be the relevance if you were correct?

5 someone here said 'war is not the way to solve a conflict', anti-war people seem to get more emotional than rational. Maybe Hitler could have been stopped with peace rallies.
First, you should abstain from emotional, non-factual evaluations of members who hold different views that yourself. Second, what on earth does Hitler have to do with this discussion? The situation between the WW:s is not comparable to the current world situation.
6 The world is different now after 9/11. In a completely different period in history where people are thinking of pre-emptive strikes to stop an mostly invisible threat. What to do ...


I don't agree the world is different now than before the 9/11, the personal world for many individuals are of course different, but terrorism as an international problem was discussed ages before 9/11-2001. And many countries, for instance the UK, Germany and Spain have long been intervening against "invisible" terrorist threats. What is you referr to when you call it a "completely different period in history?"
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
User avatar
Der-draigen
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 11:00 pm
Location: A nice place in New England
Contact:

Post by Der-draigen »

Originally posted by Gruntboy
So you disagree with me disagreeing, Der Draigen, you don't have to tell me that here. I have a right to my opinion no matter how strongly you feel about yours. :mad:


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

Post by Mr Sleep »

Originally posted by at99
2 France has reportedly $60 US Biliion contracts with Iraq. Germany has contracts to with Iraq
Heh, as opposed to all those weapons which the US and UK alledgedly sold to Iraq and numerous other countries, Zimbabwe anyone?
5 someone here said 'war is not the way to solve a conflict', anti-war people seem to get more emotional than rational. Maybe Hitler could have been stopped with peace rallies.
Oh why must people always bring Hitler into everything? Hitler was an evil man but his cabinet was just as evil, you can't just blame one man, just as you can't blame just Bush for the current financial situation in the US. There is no comparison to be had between Hitler and Saddam, their situations are completelyerent. Nice use of sweeping generalisations too, I once saw another person posting on the internet with a number in his name, he was a git so I guess you are too :rolleyes:
6 The world is different now after 9/11. In a completely different period in history where people are thinking of pre-emptive strikes to stop an mostly invisible threat. What to do ...


I am afraid it's pretty much been like that since the invention of the nuclear weapon, the whole cold war was basically about counter measures. Much of the Nuclear deterrent is basically "look what would happen to you if you nuke us". 9/11 has nothing to do with the current situation imho, in fact Iraq are not linked to Al Queda in any obvious way, after all a section of Al Queda are Kurdish and they don't take to kindly to being gassed by Saddam.
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:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Originally posted by C Elegans
And many countries, for instance the UK, Germany and Spain have long been intervening against "invisible" terrorist threats. What is you referr to when you call it a "completely different period in history?"


It's interesting to note that this countries paranoia over the Ireland situation has diminished to almost nil, we hear nothing about it on the news or radio, it's sad to say but this country is more worried about solving the middle east problem than the still prevalent Ireland issue.
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:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Originally posted by at99
4 North Korea is hotting up, the chinese REFUSE to speak to NKorea and NKorea only wants to speak with the US (why). There is an opinion the Iraq situation has encouraged them to try get a good deal.


My knowledge of the whole North Korea situation is not very substantial however I know that North Korea has threatened America with Nuclear weapons if the US decide to try any military action against them...which concerns me a great deal. North Korea have 2 nuclear weapons at least and have enough material to make more.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
User avatar
RandomThug
Posts: 2795
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:00 am
Location: Nowheresville
Contact:

Post by RandomThug »

France has reportedly $60 US Biliion contracts with Iraq. Germany has contracts to with Iraq
So? As opposed to the US and UK who have economic interests at all in the oil in the region? What is it you wish to say by stating the above?


I believe what he was going at is something that also bothers me to no end. The fact that when quoting stats and facts those who oppose US action (in any sense, not just the event at hand "war") people tend to only focus on the negative facts of the US and use other countries as "proof" that the US is wrong without acknowledging the negative facts on the end of those other countries.

For instance people using France and Germanies stance to aid thier argument that America is just a greedy warmongering state, yet they neglect to mention france's hand in Iraqi oil....
5 someone here said 'war is not the way to solve a conflict', anti-war people seem to get more emotional than rational. Maybe Hitler could have been stopped with peace rallies.


Thats a heavy statement. But I can draw parallels with this using some reason. I do not believe Iraq is in anyway comparable to hitler, yet Terrorists could be used in this argument. Peace rallies will not change the motivations of Religously bent maniac killers. War is an inevitable as man is nothing more than a beast. Until we are all governed by one government with the most peaceful non corruptive people, there will be war.


6 The world is different now after 9/11. In a completely different period in history where people are thinking of pre-emptive strikes to stop an mostly invisible threat. What to do ...


Definitly. The world is changed. America's government is motivated by the sway of its people, and while the rest of the world has been experiancing these invisible terrorists Americans on American soil have never been a part of this. Now we are. I find it hard to disagree that AMERICA is going through an entire different period of history and being that America has influence on the entire world. Things have changed, we have entered this horrible field.




BTW Peace rallies are awsome. Any form of rallying for a good cause are great. I wont be there with you guys but have fun...
Jackie Treehorn: People forget the brain is the biggest sex organ.
The Dude: On you maybe.
User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Originally posted by RandomThug
Definitly. The world is changed. America's government is motivated by the sway of its people, and while the rest of the world has been experiancing these invisible terrorists Americans on American soil have never been a part of this. Now we are. I find it hard to disagree that AMERICA is going through an entire different period of history and being that America has influence on the entire world. Things have changed, we have entered this horrible field.


I think you have to endeavour not to let it effect you, living in paranoia is not good for anyone, I should know I can be surprisingly paranoid at times, mostly just cynically paranoid but it is not a good state of mind. It is a downward spiral that helps no one and nothing.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
User avatar
RandomThug
Posts: 2795
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:00 am
Location: Nowheresville
Contact:

Post by RandomThug »

@Sleep

I say the american people, not I. We've already gone over the fact that even if the war was coming to LA I wouldnt move.


I also want to add onto the Hitler thing. I believe people use "Hitler" as an example of an evil with intent on causing harm to innocence on a scale we wont know about till its over. Also I dont wanna hijack this thread so I'll stop.

Have fun and be safe on your protest marche's dont let anyone stop you, thats the beauty of the US. Freedom.
Jackie Treehorn: People forget the brain is the biggest sex organ.
The Dude: On you maybe.
User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Originally posted by RandomThug
I say the american people, not I. We've already gone over the fact that even if the war was coming to LA I wouldnt move.
My statement was meant to be general, I think paranoia breeds paraoia and it isn't healthy.
I also want to add onto the Hitler thing. I believe people use "Hitler" as an example of an evil with intent on causing harm to innocence on a scale we wont know about till its over. Also I dont wanna hijack this thread so I'll stop.

Have fun and be safe on your protest marche's dont let anyone stop you, thats the beauty of the US. Freedom.


Hmm I don't think I'll touch this one, the whole holocaust thing was covered a while back and it isn't a subject I really want to go over again, it's ****ing depressing.

I quite agree, I personally don't know how much it will actually do however something is better than nothing.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
User avatar
Scayde
Posts: 8739
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:05 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Scayde »

Originally posted by Waverly
I just wanted to clarify something here: the reaction of terrorists to war with Iraq, troops in Germany, or the choice of Australian wine over Napa Valley isn’t.. cannot be a consideration. Once we make “what will the terrorists think?” a valid question before doing anything we have endorsed one of their key objectives: influence without reason or parity on the daily lives of free people.


Excellent point Waverly. Even if I have any reservations about the possibility of war, it would not be because of terroristic blackmail.

Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde)

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