Merged: Anti-war protesters are going too far + should be kept quiet - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-24-2003, 12:53 AM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 05:00 PM
As I said in another thread, I guess being in America changes things for anti-war protestors what with the security et al. But the question of muffling yourself because it's futile... well, it's too bad some people feel this way. Personally, I agree with the phrase I've seen on pickets, "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention". The rallies here so far have not gotten out of hand; the only instance was when McDonald's closed down during the rally with people shouting "shame!" at it. (Silly.)

foray
__________________

__________________
foray is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 01:13 AM   #62
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 11:00 PM
yes, people are outraged now, nevermind the last decade, it doesnt matter what Saddam has done, is currently doing, or could do...

Saddam is unaccountable; it's easier to be critical of the US because most of US leaders actually care about perception and consequences of their actions
__________________

__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 01:37 AM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 05:00 PM
It's true. I haven't been paying attention, either.

foray
__________________
foray is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 01:43 AM   #64
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Pro-war people have not paid any attention to Sadaam's atrocities except when the U.S. is engaging Iraq in war. I thought WMD's were what we were after, anyway -- or is it just whatever issue seems most convenient at the time?
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:09 AM   #65
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 11:00 PM
actually the UN needs to take responsibility for allowing Saddam to break the resolutions of the Gulf War Treaty and expel UN Inspectors; true, Clinton did very little to address this issue while the UN Security Councel did nothing and member nations of the UN virtually ignored the situation

kind of hard to pin all of this on the johnny-come-lately pro-war people, when anti-war people ignored the situation as well
__________________
send lawyers, guns and money...
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:30 AM   #66
Purgatory
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,445
Local Time: 10:00 PM
im just curious as to when israel is gonna have to face up to un resolutions, laws, farts, milkshakes, etc.
__________________
Gickies Gageeze is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 02:31 AM   #67
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:00 PM
I agree Wanderer, virtually everybody has ignored Sadaam's crimes against humanity. But let's face it, much of the discussion by pro-war people about Sadaam's atrocities ends up with the same refrain: "Why aren't the 'peace' protesters protesting Sadaam's brutality?"

The question I pose is as follows: If pro-war people are so concerned about Sadaam's treatment of his people, why haven't they (pro-war folks) been marching in the streets for years in protest of Sadaam? If pro-war folks have such deep convictions with respect to Sadaam's crimes against humanity, why haven't they made a stink about it until the last several months when the U.S. was gearing up for war with Iraq?
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 09:02 AM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Its all very neat to say that the anti-war coalition ignored Saddam's crimes. I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly did not. This war should have been fought a long time ago, but now there are other complications.

Should something be done about Saddam? Yes.
Is it a reason to go to war? No.

Its not as simple as that, but I simply can not agree with this 'pre-emptive strike' rhetoric. A country should go to war when its own security is directly being threatened by the other; I still have yet to see any rhetoric to see how Saddam Hussein is a direct threat to the United States or the United Kingdom.

NORTH KOREA is another matter altogether. Now, THAT is a country that should be stopped before it is too late. Instead of this stalling, the 'coalition of the willing' should place their efforts there. The more we stall, the more pernicious it shall be for us in the future. The threat is there, not in Iraq.

It is not out of some pacifist nature that I object to this war, I object to it because it is wholly unecessary. Iraq is NOT a threat as long as Saddam Hussein knows that doing anything will get him killed. Well, I speak of this in the present tense, this rhetoric is now quite redundant at this present moment in time.

Who, may I ask, will stop North Korea? What I find distressing about this entire situation is that the real threat, the real danger, is being ignored. What, precisely, is being done about North Korea? Not half of what should be done, I can tell you.

The 'only' reason I can see, the only credible and positive reason for this war to be fought, is for the 'liberation' of the Iraqi people. How can I deny the benefits there? I do not. However, when placing it in the 'war equation', it is not as simple as that - it does not balance. We have lived perfectly well through humanitarian crisis after humanitarian crisis, what is going on in Africa comes to mind immediately (I know how Bono is particularly frustrated about that), and, more often than not, we have not seen it as a reason to do anything, let alone go for war.

Ant.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 10:42 AM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 04:00 AM
That WAS Anthony posting, right?
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 10:47 AM   #70
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:00 PM
What the? Bizarre.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 10:52 AM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Actually, Anthony and I are the same person.

Actually, everybody in this forum is the same person, namely me.

Actually, I did post a response to pub crawler's last question. I have no idea how the message, but not the handle, were replaced by Anthony's posting.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 11:06 AM   #72
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Actually, everybody in this forum is the same person, namely me.
Yes, I was quite sure of that. My suspicions have been confirmed.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 11:11 AM   #73
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 04:00 AM
This is extremely strange... and I do not know how this happened.

I am Anthony, though... and hopefully, speedracer is... er... speedracer.

I say, can someone please help us out here? I saw 'Being John Malkovich' the other day and this is starting to creep me out.


Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 11:13 AM   #74
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 09:00 PM
speedracer is everyone.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 03-24-2003, 11:17 AM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
Its all very neat to say that the anti-war coalition ignored Saddam's crimes. I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly did not. This war should have been fought a long time ago, but now there are other complications.

Should something be done about Saddam? Yes.
Is it a reason to go to war? No.

Its not as simple as that, but I simply can not agree with this 'pre-emptive strike' rhetoric. A country should go to war when its own security is directly being threatened by the other; I still have yet to see any rhetoric to see how Saddam Hussein is a direct threat to the United States or the United Kingdom.

NORTH KOREA is another matter altogether. Now, THAT is a country that should be stopped before it is too late. Instead of this stalling, the 'coalition of the willing' should place their efforts there. The more we stall, the more pernicious it shall be for us in the future. The threat is there, not in Iraq.

It is not out of some pacifist nature that I object to this war, I object to it because it is wholly unecessary. Iraq is NOT a threat as long as Saddam Hussein knows that doing anything will get him killed. Well, I speak of this in the present tense, this rhetoric is now quite redundant at this present moment in time.

Who, may I ask, will stop North Korea? What I find distressing about this entire situation is that the real threat, the real danger, is being ignored. What, precisely, is being done about North Korea? Not half of what should be done, I can tell you.

The 'only' reason I can see, the only credible and positive reason for this war to be fought, is for the 'liberation' of the Iraqi people. How can I deny the benefits there? I do not. However, when placing it in the 'war equation', it is not as simple as that - it does not balance. We have lived perfectly well through humanitarian crisis after humanitarian crisis, what is going on in Africa comes to mind immediately (I know how Bono is particularly frustrated about that), and, more often than not, we have not seen it as a reason to do anything, let alone go for war.

Ant.
It's always fascinating how two people can look at the same data and come to completely different conclusions.

I support the war on Iraq precisely because I think we can "win" this war ("win" meaning deposing Saddam with a minimum of casualties all around and lay the foundation for democracy). The Allies really have been bending over backwards to make sure that innocent bystanders are not harmed.

I don't think we should attack North Korea (at least right now) because I think there's a significant possibility that if we strike now, Seoul and Tokyo are going to turn into smoking holes in the ground. The only things we can do right now are (1) gather lots more intelligence about North Korea's nuclear weapons programs and try to take them all out in one strike sometime in the future, or (2) hunker down for a protracted campaign of containment.
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com