London Protests!!!! General Discussion Thread

[Scarletwine]

It's more than that. Comments like that from the mayor of a world capitol are sensational and irresponsible.

Actually many in the US believe the same. Therefore it is not irresponsible. I'd have him removed from office this instant if possible for lying to the American people.

Also Angela is right on the money, not supporting Bush does not infer support of Osama or Sadaam.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

All that $ spent on security, and a tabloid reporter was able to do this..


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/st...64622924.htm&sc=rontz&photoid=20031119LON600D

 

[wolfwill23]

Simply out of interest, where did you hear that?

I heard it on many news stations in the US. I believe Fox and CNN.

But wolfwill, the question still remains, for these who will be knocking down this statue as well as the countless others who wont, how does this equal they would support Hussein?

To me, it seems obvious. What do you think the Arab television stations do with that footage? They air it over and over which incites extremists. By inciting extremists you are giving strength to Saddam.

It's a counter action only to demonstrate a point. It doesn't indicate these guys are against Saddam's removal. Remember its the war they're protesting, not Hussein's removal.

How can one protest the war and not protest Saddam's removal? I don't think Saddam would have EVER been removed without war. He was too close to France and Russia (there is proof of the closeness of the these relationships.)

Also, what war are they protesting? The Iraq war is over. Get over it.

There is a difficult and dangerous peace-making operation taking place right now, but not a war. And if the people are protesting the peace-making operation, would they rather we just quit and let Iraq fall into the hands of Saddam and terrorists? That's crazy.

There is a fundamental question here that I think only history will be able to answer, is the world a better place after this conflict? I believe almost all Iraqis would say their country is better off. After Iraq is stable, I hope and pray that democracy will spread throughout the Middle East and make the world safter.

There are bad guys in the world, as much as liberals don't want to believe that, it's true. These people are evil and need to be delt with, and sometimes (13 years of) sanctions from a limp world body simply doesn't work.

History will be the ultimate judge of W and I believe it will judge him favorably. I believe ten years down the road, we will live in a safer world.

ps-I thank God every day that Al Gore is not in office for this fight.

 

[BVS]

To me, it seems obvious. What do you think the Arab television stations do with that footage? They air it over and over which incites extremists. By inciting extremists you are giving strength to Saddam.

That's a big leap of logic. First of all you would have to prove that was the intention of the protestors.

It's a ridiculous and tired argument. Conservative rhetoric.

There is a fundamental question here that I think only history will be able to answer, is the world a better place after this conflict? I believe almost all Iraqis would say their country is better off. After Iraq is stable, I hope and pray that democracy will spread throughout the Middle East and make the world safter.

There are bad guys in the world, as much as liberals don't want to believe that, it's true. These people are evil and need to be delt with, and sometimes (13 years of) sanctions from a limp world body simply doesn't work.

History will be the ultimate judge of W and I believe it will judge him favorably. I believe ten years down the road, we will live in a safer world.

You're right, at this point, only history will be able to answer...unfortunately I don't believe you'll get the answer you're looking for.

So liberals don't believe there are bad guys? That's a new one, hadn't heard that one before.

Yes let's spread democracy all over the world, but when you get protestors, a product of democracy, then just kill them and ask for immunity. What a great man...

 

[wolfwill23]

That's a big leap of logic. First of all you would have to prove that was the intention of the protestors.

It's a ridiculous and tired argument. Conservative rhetoric.

That's not a leap of logic, that IS logic. Let's be honest here.

You're right, at this point, only history will be able to answer...unfortunately I don't believe you'll get the answer you're looking for.

Only time will tell.

So liberals don't believe there are bad guys? That's a new one, hadn't heard that one before.

Opinion.

Yes let's spread democracy all over the world, but when you get protestors, a product of democracy, then just kill them and ask for immunity. What a great man...

Kill what? The protests? Is that what happened? What immunity?

 

[BVS]

That's not a leap of logic, that IS logic. Let's be honest here.

So then by this logic, anyone who supported the war also led to the strength of extremists. Don't you think waging war incited these extremists as well? In fact many believe that recruited for these extremists groups have risen recently. This weak "logic" can run both ways, so be careful in the future when you accuse someone of supporting someone like Saddam.

Kill what? The protests? Is that what happened? What immunity?

Sources say Bush asked for immunity for his security team if one "accidentily killed" a protestor. Luckily they denied him his wish. But this doesn't sound like one who supports democracy.

 

[wolfwill23]

Sources say Bush asked for immunity for his security team if one "accidentily killed" a protestor. Luckily they denied him his wish. But this doesn't sound like one who supports democracy.

Why? Because once he was granted the immunity, he would have his team open fire on the protesters? Please.

With the anti-Americanism that is running through the world right now, an accident could very easily turn into a witch hunt. People like the mayor of London who make irresponsible comments fuel this fire. I would hate to have an American security employee made an example of.

 

[BVS]

Why? Because once he was granted the immunity, he would have his team open fire on the protesters? Please.

With the anti-Americanism that is running through the world right now, an accident could very easily turn into a witch hunt. People like the mayor of London who make irresponsible comments fuel this fire. I would hate to have an American security employee made an example of.

But you wouldn't mind if he killed someone and didn't have to be held under the same investigation as anyone else? That's not democracy.

 

[wolfwill23]

So liberals don't believe there are bad guys? That's a new one, hadn't heard that one before.

Liberals do believe there are bad guys, but many lack the resolve to deal with these people.

Example, Clinton's dealing with Bin Laden, or lack there of. After FIVE!!!!! major terror attacks (1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole) on US targets throughout the 90's and 2000, Clinton PROMISED to bring the killers to justice. These were empty promises.

Clinton didn't have the strength to do what needed to be done, which was putting boots on the ground in Afganistan. Because of his fear to go after the bad guys we had the 9/11 attacks. (Please don't try to put the blame for these attacks on the Bush administration-the attacks were planned by Bin Laden, in Afganistan from 1996 to 2001. That was Clinton's watch.)

Yes, war is awful. However, sometimes it is necessary. The majority of the American people know this and support the Iraq war and president Bush. In times when you have nuts flying planes into buildings, you may need to use force. We are at war with a violent group of lethal terrorists who have no regard for human life. You cannot look the other (ala Clinton) way in this war or we will die. You must face your enemy head on and destroy him. As barbaric as that may sound, unfortunately, it is true.

 

[BVS]

Yes, war is awful. However, sometimes it is necessary. The majority of the American people know this and support the Iraq war and president Bush. In times when you have nuts flying planes into buildings, you may need to use force. We are at war with a violent group of lethal terrorists who have no regard for human life. You cannot look the other (ala Clinton) way in this war or we will die. You must face your enemy head on and destroy him. As barbaric as that may sound, unfortunately, it is true.

Once again I ask you to get your facts straight. There were no Iraqis in those planes. Is it they support Bush or the false implications of the administration, such as Iraq had something to do with 9/11?

 

[STING2]

FizzingWhizzbees,

Never said that if one opposed military action in Iraq that one supported Saddam. I'm not sure how everyone in the crowd feels, and I doubt you know them all as well. I suspect few of them celebrated Saddam's overthrow since they devoted so much time and energy to preventing the action that achieved that goal, and they are now mocking the the tearing down of Statues of Saddam by Iraqi people. The War was indeed the only way to overthrow Saddam, but if you have a better idea, I'd love to hear your technical explanation.

Yes, I've heard plenty of claims about protesting Saddam and not supporting Saddam. But many of these same people listened to Saddam's lies about the efects of Sanctions for a decade and never once voiced support for his removal through military force.

Its unfortunate people do not see the facts of US involvement with Iraq in the 1980s and are unwilling to look at the bigger picture of what was happening at the time. For starters, you allege the USA sold weapon systems to Iraq, can you name any?


"And Sting, you know as well as anyone that he's not just here to discuss international issues, he's done that on two previous occassions. He's here for a state visit which serves no purpose other than giving him some nice pics for his re-election campaign."

You could make that claim of any leader, anywhere.

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

There is no evidence that Al Quida is a bigger threat than it was a year ago. Life in Iraq continues improve. Tens of Billions of US dollars are coming in to help the Iraqi people. Other countries may hope the USA does not succeed, luckily for the Iraqi people, their hope will not be realized

Angela Harlem,

If you carefully look at my post, you will notice that I did not specifically claim anyone was supporting Saddam, although I did not rule the possibility out. Burning or tearing down an effigy of Bush, mocking Iraqi people celebration of the downfall of Saddam, does not strike me as a sign of opposition to Saddam.

Would you tell veterans there was no credible reason for the actions they have taken? Some of those who believe the USA had no right to act last Spring feel the USA had no right to act in World War II. If your a Pacifist and think that, thats ok. But I think a women has the right to use violence to defend herself from being raped. I think a man has the right to use force to defend his family from an intruder. I believe the Police have the right to take a number of actions that may involve violence to defend the citizens of their community. I believe the Military has the right to defend this country and other countries from the actions of a ruthless, unlawful, dicatator.

The Moral right to act against Saddam: the deaths of 1.7 million people caused by Saddams unprovoked, unlawful actions.

The Legal right to act against Saddam: Resolutions 678, 687, 1443, all of which authorize the use of force if Saddam fails to comply or is in material breech of any resolutions passed against him under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

 

[Scarletwine]

'We don't want Bush visit'
By Emma Owen, This is London
18 November 2003
Two-thirds of Londoners do not think it is the right time for President Bush to come to the UK, according to a This is London poll.
In response to the question 'Is this the right time for President Bush to visit the UK?', 66 per cent of 1,834 voters answered no, while only 34 per cent said yes.

And asked what their principle objection was to Bush's state visit, 29% of the 1625 respondents cited the war on Iraq, while 20% said it was the policing costs.

 

[STING2]

Angela Harlem,

Another thing, the protestors if they do support the removal of Saddam should remember that it was the WAR that removed Saddam!

Scarletwine,

There is not indisputible evidence that Bush has lied about anything. You can infer all you want, but the facts and the Public do not agree or support your conclusion at this time.

BonoVoxSupastar,

As far as getting facts straight, lets remember that Woolfill did not say there were Iraqi's on those planes.

 

[BVS]

As far as getting facts straight, lets remember that Woolfill did not say there were Iraqi's on those planes.

The majority of the American people know this and support the Iraq war and president Bush. In times when you have nuts flying planes into buildings, you may need to use force.

Well then maybe he along with the president should learn how to construct a paragraph. 9/11 and the war on Iraq are two separate ideas and should be handled separately. Not thrown into the same idea like so many want to do.

 

[najeena]

Maybe in the same paragraph only to say that Bush used 9/11 to push his personal war agenda. I saw a car today that had a big American flag in one window, and a smiling picture of Bush with a big red slash across it in the other. Being against war is NOT being unpatriotic, it's our right as an Americans to protest a wrong we feel is being done in our name. And our right to vote this guy out of office next November before he can cause any further harm.

 

[verte76]

I put a flag sticker on my car after 9/11. Most of you probably know that I am not a Bush supporter. I don't see anything incongruous about this. That flag sticker is staying on my car no matter who's in the White House. It's my country no matter who's in there, and I love it no matter who's in there.

 

[AcrobatMan]

Liberals do believe there are bad guys, but many lack the resolve to deal with these people.

Example, Clinton's dealing with Bin Laden, or lack there of. After FIVE!!!!! major terror attacks (1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole) on US targets throughout the 90's and 2000, Clinton PROMISED to bring the killers to justice. These were empty promises.

Clinton didn't have the strength to do what needed to be done, which was putting boots on the ground in Afganistan. Because of his fear to go after the bad guys we had the 9/11 attacks. (Please don't try to put the blame for these attacks on the Bush administration-the attacks were planned by Bin Laden, in Afganistan from 1996 to 2001. That was Clinton's watch.)

Yes, war is awful. However, sometimes it is necessary. The majority of the American people know this and support the Iraq war and president Bush. In times when you have nuts flying planes into buildings, you may need to use force. We are at war with a violent group of lethal terrorists who have no regard for human life. You cannot look the other (ala Clinton) way in this war or we will die. You must face your enemy head on and destroy him. As barbaric as that may sound, unfortunately, it is true.

i am not for war but i partly support bush's efforts.

 

[Soul Always]

You know, I have a very hard time understanding why so much time and energy and protests are going into Bush when no one was protesting all the crap that Saddam was doing to his own people, and no one protests what men over in those countries still do to women. No one is protesting the crappy wages that people earn. No one is protesting homeless people. Very few are protesting about the problems in Africa.

Once again, I think that people are totally ignoring one subject in order to harp on another.

Frankly, I feel sorry for Bush. He has become people's favorite bad guy in the world, over Saddam and Osama and abusive fathers and husbands.

I just think it's very unbalanced, if you ask me. I'd feel so much better about it if I also saw people out there protesting the fact that Osama and Hussein are still free.

(And I wonder, if we actually get those two guys if the people now protesting will feel a little happier, feel, perhaps, a little kinder toward the cause when their own throats aren't on the line.)

 

[verte76]

SoulAlways, I'm *very* concerned about how women are treated in those countries. It's a serious human rights problem. I read some books by an American writer, Jean Sasson, about a princess in the royal house of Saudi Arabia, whom she calls Sultana. Sultana's own niece is a daily victim of rape because she was forced to marry a cruel old man she didn't know. The books are absolutely shocking. I'm signing petitions, sending e-mails, donating and generally doing what I can to help these women. So I am protesting this stuff. I have so much "protest mail" it's insane and I'm having to re-arrange my damn bookshelves to keep up with it.

 

[Soul Always]

SoulAlways, I'm *very* concerned about how women are treated in those countries. It's a serious human rights problem. I read some books by an American writer, Jean Sasson, about a princess in the royal house of Saudi Arabia, whom she calls Sultana. Sultana's own niece is a daily victim of rape because she was forced to marry a cruel old man she didn't know. The books are absolutely shocking. I'm signing petitions, sending e-mails, donating and generally doing what I can to help these women. So I am protesting this stuff. I have so much "protest mail" it's insane and I'm having to re-arrange my damn bookshelves to keep up with it.

Good for you! Yes, it is atrocious and MORE needs to be said about it.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

#Never said that if one opposed military action in Iraq that one supported Saddam. I'm not sure how everyone in the crowd feels, and I doubt you know them all as well. I suspect few of them celebrated Saddam's overthrow since they devoted so much time and energy to preventing the action that achieved that goal, and they are now mocking the the tearing down of Statues of Saddam by Iraqi people.

You said

"Saddam is out of power in Iraq and he is not coming back." Sorry "if" that bothers anyone.

So you weren't implying that if someone opposed the war then it must be because they were sad to see Saddam deposed?

I'd hazard a guess and say I know more people who opposed the war than you did, being as I spent a year working practically full-time for an anti-war campaign. And of the thousands of people I met during that campaign, I never once met a person who supported Saddam or who was unhappy when he was ousted from power. We opposed the means by which he was removed from power, we opposed an illegal war which lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi people. Many of us campaigned under the slogan "No to war, no to Saddam" - a clear statement of opposition to the former Iraqi president.

Tearing down an effigy of Bush is in no way mocking Iraqi people who celebrated when the statue of Saddam in central Baghdad was toppled. It's a statement of opposition to Bush, and more than anything else, it's a publicity stunt! If the President of the US can demand ?5m be spent on protecting him while he gets some nice pictures for his re-election campaigh then we can damn well pull down a statue to get a bit of publicity for our campaign.

Yes, I've heard plenty of claims about protesting Saddam and not supporting Saddam. But many of these same people listened to Saddam's lies about the efects of Sanctions for a decade and never once voiced support for his removal through military force.

Actually I listened to Denis Halliday, the UN official responsible for implementing the sanctions in Iraq, when he stated the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children were directly attributable to the UN sanctions. I listened to UNICEF's statement that six or seven thousand Iraqi children were dying each month due to sanctions. I never supported his removal through military force because I believed it was unncessary and believed that it would have devastating effects on the Iraqi people.

Its unfortunate people do not see the facts of US involvement with Iraq in the 1980s and are unwilling to look at the bigger picture of what was happening at the time.

So are you denying that Rumsfeld met with and shook hands with Saddam? Are you denying that he was ever sold weapons by the United States? What bigger picture are we talking about - do you mean it's justified to supply weapons to a brutal dictator so long as it's as part of a "bigger picture"?

 

[BVS]

Nice post Fizz.

 

[Klaus]

wolfwill23:
"There are bad guys in the world, as much as liberals don't want to believe that, it's true. These people are evil and need to be delt with"

No Liberals have just a different idea (more complex and longterm) how to deal efficiently with the problem.

"Sources say Bush asked for immunity for his security team if one "accidentily killed" a protestor. Luckily they denied him his wish. But this doesn't sound like one who supports democracy."

And it's not unpatriotic if someone asks himself WHY the Bush administration asks for this immunity.

"Yes, war is awful. However, sometimes it is necessary. The majority of the American people know this and support the Iraq war and president Bush. In times when you have nuts flying planes into buildings, you may need to use force"

Right - use all your power to prevent a planecrash like that, don't abuse your power by telling the public that "we found links between alquaida and Hussein"...


Sting2:
"There is no evidence that Al Quida is a bigger threat than it was a year ago."

Why does G.W.B. need such a massive ammount of security people if it isn't against a terror attack of al-quaida?
I remember that it wasn't necessary before the Iraq war.

Klaus

 

[zoney!]

Looks like the Spice Girls even came out to protest Bush.

"Tell me what you want what you really really want!"

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Pictures of demos I couldn't go on make me sad.

 

[melon]

It's more than that. Comments like that from the mayor of a world capitol are sensational and irresponsible.

It's a habit of nations to belittle and stereotype foreign entities. After all, if it were up to the U.S., all the nations of the Middle East would all be exactly the same. Our treatment of France, as well, certainly proves that we don't lay claim to the moral high road.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

All of a sudden we have people quoting sources that were debated months (years) ago. Sources that were countered by Sting, myself and others with equally valid sources and facts and figures.

And again...Don Rumsfeld...photograph....

please....



The United States was not the only NATO ally kissing Saddams Ass. But I would love to see one of you, just for once put a shred of proof into your posts that the US gave Saddam WEAPONS. how many times has STING or myself or others put up where Saddam actually got his weapons? I am NOT denying the US greasing the wheels. But the picture of Rumsfeld does not = the US supplying weapons to IRAQ.

So please, put the burden of proof on yourself, because, I believe Sting, myself, and others have done enough searching and posting countering exactly some of the SAME rhetoric posted in here today that was posted in here a year ago.

 

[meegannie]

Pictures of demos I couldn't go on make me sad.

Me too. I really wish I could've gone, especially as an American.

 

[STING2]

FizzingWhizzbees,

"So you weren't implying that if someone opposed the war then it must be because they were sad to see Saddam deposed?"

I was simply saying I did not know and I don't think you know the personal views every person who protested the war. Certain actions do cause one to at least ask the question.

A question for you. What was the #1 way in which protesters felt Saddam could be overthrown and how often was this alternative way promoted by the protesters, especially in comparison to opposition to US military action? Please give a technical explanation as unseating a dictator with a half a million man military is not as easy as clicking ones heals.

There is no proven evidence which shows that tens of thousands of Iraqi's died as a result of the US invasion. Several of my friends who were in Iraq for months can testify to that fact.

Did the Anti-War protestors ever estimate the cost to the Iraqi people of continued rule by Saddam? Did any of them ever estimate how many Iraqi's would be dead or tortured from Saddam's rule over the next few years?

"Tearing down an effigy of Bush is in no way mocking Iraqi people who celebrated when the statue of Saddam in central Baghdad was toppled."

Did any of the Anti-War Protestors ask people in Iraq how they would feel about it?

"Actually I listened to Denis Halliday, the UN official responsible for implementing the sanctions in Iraq, when he stated the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children were directly attributable to the UN sanctions. I listened to UNICEF's statement that six or seven thousand Iraqi children were dying each month due to sanctions. I never supported his removal through military force because I believed it was unncessary and believed that it would have devastating effects on the Iraqi people."

Do you know where Denis Halliday and UNICEF got their information on deaths of Iraqi Childern from? SADDAM HUSSIEN

SADDAM controlled the means of distribution of humanitarian supplies throughout Iraq. He also controlled and watched every step that UNICEF and the UN inspectors made or anything anyone else did on the ground in Iraq. It was SADDAM's goal to create situations, real or fake, that would create support around the world for lifting sanctions that were essentially a weapons embargo.

Even if there was a legimate claim that sanctions was preventing something from getting throught that was causing people to die, its not as if lifting those sanctions would have prevented it. This is Saddam controlled Iraq and in Saddam controlled Iraq, who dies and who lives is dependent upon Saddam alone. Even if a certain medicine were denied, allowing it to go through would not mean the people who needed it would live. Just ask the Shia who make up the majority of Iraq. SADDAM controled the means of distribution within Iraq, not UNICEF. Saddam used this controll to kill off and control his enemies.

"So are you denying that Rumsfeld met with and shook hands with Saddam? Are you denying that he was ever sold weapons by the United States? What bigger picture are we talking about - do you mean it's justified to supply weapons to a brutal dictator so long as it's as part of a "bigger picture"?

Not at all. Just like I would not deny that Rosevelt and Churchill
met with Stalin and shook hands. The USA did send weapons to the Soviet Union in massive quantities during World War II, but the USA did not send combat Weapon systems to Iraq during the 1980s. If you disagree, please NAME THE WEAPON SYSTEM that was sent.

As far as big picture and supplying Weapons to dictators, it was certainly justified in 1941 when the USA and UK did that with the Soviet Union. I would actually argue it was justified in the 1980s to prevent an Iranian take over of Iraq and potentially the entire Persian Gulf Region, but the Soviet Union was already doing all the weapon supplying for Saddam since Iraq by 1980 had been a longtime client state of the Soviet Union. The USA did not send any Weapon systems to Iraq in the 1980s, but if you disagree, please name the weapon system and the year it was sold to Iraq by the USA.

Yes, Rumsfeld did meet with Saddam in 1983 just like someone from the USA has always done with all world leaders good or bad at one time or another. I'm sure you don't consider "talking" to be evil. Yes Saddam did get some Trucks, Transport Helicopters, computers, and supplies from the USA in the 1980s, but NO weapon systems. The SOVIETS already had that area cornered and covered, with the French and the Chinese getting a little action as well.

In fact, my friends in Iraq found FRENCH ROLAND II Missiles just recently made by France in 2002 in Iraq during the war and aftermath this year.