anti-war supporters

[nbcrusader]

It is an opinion. It is mine, I stand by it.

Maybe the ambulance I saw in Boston, not able to get where it needed to should have just looked for a detour. It needed one.

I agree with you completely. Criminal behavior, even in the form of "free speech" cannot be justified as "American".

I guess what I was getting at was the often repeated phrase "a stance against the war is not anti-American". If we go through an exercise of what in principle is "American" (in terms of behaviors, rights and actions), we may find ourselves in a place we don't want to be at the end of the day.

 

[Dreadsox]

But the second I speak out about something I saw that was wrong, people turn it into something it wasn't. that is fine I guess. It is becoming the way of FYM twist, turn, and put words into other peoples mouths.

If you support the WAR you have no respect for human life.

It does not matter that I have written numerous posts about my belief that dissent is important in our country. My post is twisted and turned into something it was not.

Peace

 

[speedracer]

a genuine concern i have about these large protests is the safety and security issue. we're at war and we're at high alert. we're told that there is a decent chance that another attack could occur within our borders. i fear that because the police are busy watching over these protests, they aren't watching over the rest of the city. here in chicago it took an insane amount of cops to control a protest that took over lake shore drive. it was ludicrous. what if some terrorist or saddam sympathizer decided to profit from the distraction and blow something up? the cops have much bigger things to worry about than babysitting 1000s of protesters. i'm all for freedom of speech, and i don't believe the war/peace dialogue should simply end because we're now at war. i just don't like idea of it possibly having a detrimental effect on homeland security.

Damn...

 

[Dreadsox]

a genuine concern i have about these large protests is the safety and security issue. we're at war and we're at high alert. we're told that there is a decent chance that another attack could occur within our borders. i fear that because the police are busy watching over these protests, they aren't watching over the rest of the city. here in chicago it took an insane amount of cops to control a protest that took over lake shore drive. it was ludicrous. what if some terrorist or saddam sympathizer decided to profit from the distraction and blow something up? the cops have much bigger things to worry about than babysitting 1000s of protesters. i'm all for freedom of speech, and i don't believe the war/peace dialogue should simply end because we're now at war. i just don't like idea of it possibly having a detrimental effect on homeland security.

well put

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Never said that and I believe in the right to freedom of speech and to bring grievences to the governement.

I hope you're not implying that my vent was directed toward you-if that's what you think, that vent wasn't directed at you, that was directed at the people who answered that MSN poll saying war protests were "anti-American".

I realize you believe that we have a right to speak out against the war, and I really appreciate that. .

Originally posted by Dreadsox
That is not what I have seen in Boston recently, nor is it what I have seen on TV.

I did not sign my name on the line to protect your right to protest when I joined the military to watch people illegally block streets and highways. Quite possibly, blocking abulances and fire trucks from getting to where they need to be.

I bleive in the right to protest in a lawful manner. What I have been witnessing in SOME cases is anything but that.

I agree with you on this.

Like I said earlier, blocking roads and traffic during a protest can be dangerous, and your saying that about ambulances and fire trucks (and police cars) being unable to go to where they really need to go proves that it's dangerous. That's not the way to do it.

And then of course there's the war protests where violence erupts...which really defeats the purpose of what you're protesting. That's not right, either.

Angela

 

[Kristie]

I think protesters are blocking the streets because they feel it will get their voices heard...
Wasn't Bono calling for people in the streets to stop AIDS?
If they feel that's what it takes to achieve what they feel is right, then they are going to do it, be it lawful or not.
I'm currantly unopinionated about that part, but I do have a bit of respect for people who are willing to break laws and get arrested for a cause.

I was at my father's house for a bit today. He was watching Fox News (can you say biased?), they were showing anti-war protest footage. I left when he started talking about how we should gas the protesters.

They have a photo of Bush on the mantle next to mine. I was a bit offended by that, but I felt it was better to keep the peace.

yes, this post is rather disjointed, sorry about that.

 

[kobayashi]

and...yes im drunk

a genuine concern i have about these large protests is the safety and security issue. we're at war and we're at high alert. we're told that there is a decent chance that another attack could occur within our borders. i fear that because the police are busy watching over these protests, they aren't watching over the rest of the city. here in chicago it took an insane amount of cops to control a protest that took over lake shore drive. it was ludicrous. what if some terrorist or saddam sympathizer decided to profit from the distraction and blow something up? the cops have much bigger things to worry about than babysitting 1000s of protesters. i'm all for freedom of speech, and i don't believe the war/peace dialogue should simply end because we're now at war. i just don't like idea of it possibly having a detrimental effect on homeland security.

but is that not then an accepted and inherent dangerin the war?
where does free speech stop and security continue?
the cops should just have more personnel, but, having said that, you cant put too many personnell on any one situation especially the safety and security of the city.

there are of course no 'ansers' to these questions. they are just spokes in the wheel. i guess the only potential answer is some sort of 'reason' persist in the minds of protesters...to have them say 'hey we might be opening more doors for terrorists than for politicians'.

anyhooo i dont really know what im talking about at htis hour...im sorry for posting in fym drunk

 

[Rono]

I hope you're not implying that my vent was directed toward you-if that's what you think, that vent wasn't directed at you, that was directed at the people who answered that MSN poll saying war protests were "anti-American".

I realize you believe that we have a right to speak out against the war, and I really appreciate that. .



I agree with you on this.

Like I said earlier, blocking roads and traffic during a protest can be dangerous, and your saying that about ambulances and fire trucks (and police cars) being unable to go to where they really need to go proves that it's dangerous. That's not the way to do it.

And then of course there's the war protests where violence erupts...which really defeats the purpose of what you're protesting. That's not right, either.

Angela

Yep, you are right. I have no problems to stay on the protestroute that is set out by the police and the organisation but no one can forbid people to protest for the things they believe in.

I was yesterday in Amsterdam and it was a peacefull protest ,it ended about 17.00. And about 18.00 ( i was at home already ) some violence erupts. This was after the protest but our glorius media highlighted this and said that the protest was a violent one.

The whole afternoon went peacefull and there was no media coverage, but if some dumb individuals trowing some stones after the protest,......

 

[diamond]

If I were an Iraqi American I would be disgusted w/the anti-war movement.

diamond

 

[Anthony]

If I were an American I'd be disgusted with the war movement.

Ant.

 

[foray]

I am not in America so I guess this changes things. For me, going to that big rally in the city was more of a gesture of solidarity and comfort. I badly needed it. It was informative as well, as people were handing out flyers, giving speeches and opinions, and protesters were making friends, exchanging views and information. I speak for myself. It never got out of hand, we needed less than twenty police officers, I think, to mobilise traffic.

Also, it was held on a Saturday, as our rallies always are, so there weren't kids trying to play truant


foray

 

[U2girl]

There was violence and road blocks? Hmmm...yes it is weird to obstruct the traffic, but then again, isn't it the police job to secure safety in the cities?

We have some peace rallys here, but only a few got arrested, nothing big. Peaceful manner protest, no road blocks or major violence.

 

[diamond]

If I were an American I'd be disgusted with the war movement.

Ant.

Most Americans view the war movement as a human rights movement.
Thats right a human rights movement for the oppressed in Iraq.(75%)
Nearly all Iraqi-Americans view it as a human rights movement for their countrymen back home.

So after we liberate Iraq please explain your good intentions to the Iraqi ppl
who had
their tounges torn out of their mouths for opposing their govt...
-who watched their fathers be shot by Iraqi hench-men
-who watched their wives and daughters be raped by Saddams body guards
-who watched live people loaded up in to meat-grinders and killed diced and chopped up by Saddams Military..
-who watched their friends and family die by nerve gas unleashed by Saddam
-who have watched Saddam slaughter about 3-5 per cent of his country's population because they opposed him.

Go ahead Ant explain it all to them
knock yourself out..

Peace

diamond

 

[Anthony]

Well, you yourself have always contested the value of poll results everytime it doesn't swing in your favour, so forgive me if I am a tad sceptical about your particular result; I contest its value.

So much for polls.

As for your request as to 'explain' it to them;

I don't presume to have 'ANY' intentions whatsoever. Mine are not 'good' or 'bad'. Its a fine thing to be able to fit the compartments in boxes like that when regarding something so complex as war, but I myself can not do that.

What I can say to the Iraqis, on your own terms, is thus;

The truth is, generic Iraqi, I can't explain - there is no explanation that will justify your individual suffering. All I can say is my government is only doing this now because it suits them, and because they have something to gain. If it weren't for that, you would still be in that awful regime. And awful it is. However, and I am sorry to say this, I don't believe we are helping most of you in the long run. We're not because my government has other motives. Ultimately, I myself can not do anything to help you; if I could, I would. There are so many of you I would want to help. There are so many people in the world who suffer due to dictatorships - some of which have even been installed by the US and my own government - and so there is only so much I can do. The truth is, I am sorry.

I am sorry. I am sorry their tounges were torn out of your mouths for opposing your govt. I am sorry you had to watch your fathers be shot by Iraqi hench-men.
I am sorry you have had to watch your wives and daughters be raped by Saddams body guards. I am sorry you had to watch live people loaded up in to meat-grinders and killed diced and chopped up by Saddams Military (that I am not sure of, but I would not deem to accuse Diamond of exaggeration) .
I am sorry you had to watch your friends and family die by nerve gas unleashed by Saddam and I am sorry you had to watch Saddam slaughter about 3-5 per cent of his country's population because they opposed him.

And I'm sure the United Sates is sorry, too.

I'm sure the United States is sorry for supplying Saddam Hussein with the means to do so. I'm sorry the United States supported Iraq back in the 80's when it was busy killing thousands of Iranians as well as your fathers. I'm sorry President Bush Sr didn't care enough for your fathers, mothers, wives, children and friends to have done something about it then. I'm sorry the US didn't find it convenient then. I'm sorry so many Kurds lost their lives needlessly when their ill-fated insurrection closely after the Gulf War was not backed by the US - who evidently didn't care enough about you back then.

Thats right, Diamond, I said it right there; I'm sorry the US supported Saddam Hussein during the 80s, and make no mistake about it, make no attempt at dallying around with diplomatic hand-me-downs and by-words; they DID support them through military and weapons support, diplomatic inaction. If as so many of your war supporters have stated time and time again that 'if good men do nothing that is evil enough' is true, then how do you reconcile the US doing FAR more than not doing anything? You can't. The US made a huge mistake then and until people are held accountable for that, until people apologise for THAT Diamond, then my own apologies pale in comparison.

Why don't YOU explain why your government supported him once upon a time? Why don't YOU explain why your country supplied Saddam with the weapons that killed their fathers, killed their mothers, brutally destroyed their families, created countless of innocent orphans, deprived so many of the happiness we in the West are so privileged to have? Why don't YOU explain why this liberation is happening NOW? Why don't you explain why its the son doing what the father should have done? Why dont you explain why the US has had the change of heart? And please, do not do the usual thing and blame Clinton for something Bush Sr should have done right then and there in the Gulf war. It was obviously NOT in his or America's best interest. Why don't you explain to the orphaned, tortured and long-suffering child why you didn't do anything back then?

I am not the right person to explain.

My point exactly, Diamond; don't call people out with emotive writing - it is NOT a valid argument and all it does is make something already quite messy all the messier. If you have a valid argument, please present it adequately, as opposed to an emotive guilt trip.

Ant.

 

[Dreadsox]

I hope you're not implying that my vent was directed toward you-if that's what you think, that vent wasn't directed at you, that was directed at the people who answered that MSN poll saying war protests were "anti-American".

I realize you believe that we have a right to speak out against the war, and I really appreciate that. .

I think I am getting good at reading too much into things lately. Sorry

 

[Dreadsox]

And I'm sure the United States is sorry for supplying Saddam Hussein with the means to do so. I'm sorry the United States supported Iraq back in the 80's when it was busy killing thousands of Iranians as well as your fathers.

Anthony,

Truthfully I look forward to your posts. I admire your ability to continuously remain civil and objective.

The United States did not supply Iraq with military technology in the 1980's. The NBC...ie Nuclear Biological Chemical Technology was supplied by France and Germany. The US did remove many road blocks to allow this to occur and there was some assistance from the US in this area with dual Agricultural use materials.

I am curious though, given the history of the region, and the fact that our entire Foreign Policy in the Region was dependant on Iran prior to 1979. The oil crisis was pretty bad. I am not saying this to justify anything. I am just curious as to what your solution would be. We courted him when we feared the Iranian revolution spreading further into the region. We courted him when he finally had a small falling out with the Soviet Union.

Matt


Peace

 

[Anthony]

Matt;

What I DO know is that the US, through inaction or otherwise, supported Iraq. Perhaps more accurately; they did nothing.

I will believe you when you say who supplied who with what exactly, because I seriously am too troubled and too busy to look for figures that will dispute otherwise (and believe me, people can get figures from anywhere, if thats all they're worried about).

What I have heard from what I consider a reliable source, such as the BBC, is that the US did indeed supply certain weapons, because when taking sides with the Iran-Iraq war, they inevitably chose to side with Iraq. And I'm sorry, whether they sold weapons to Iraq or not is irrelevant, through some way or another, they sided with Iraq.

Evidently, the US backed the wrong horse, and that is, despite the fact that I wouldn't be able to 'explain' it to the generic Iraqi, excusable. Why shouldn't it be so? Do be certain about this, I am not saying the US is damned for all eternity because it did what it did, I am saying that this talk of 'liberation' is irresponsible as it does not take past mistakes into account. 'This' is the criticism I have always had against the US government; it acts and yet never holds itself accountable for its past mistakes - they never happened. It really makes my teeth itch to see people glorifying this 'liberation of Iraq' as some act of benevolence, when it is far from it. Of course most countries are guilty of this, the UK being the worst offender, but most countries are not THE world's superpower. Yes, America is the strongest, the most powerful and the most responsible - but it needs to set an example in humility, as well.

It is difficult for me to give an explanation or a solution to the problems of the Middle East... perhaps another thread, Dreadsox? I would argue my views most in depth, there.

Now, the reason why my response was particularly explosive, was because I do not appreciate being called out with emotive writing. If personal attacks make people wince out of annoyance, then imploring me to explain to some generic Iraqi of the evils I am not responsible for not only ruins my character but genuinely makes me feel bad. It implies things about my character in a very subtle way; it implies that I do not care for the suffering that is taking place. That, I do not accept. No more than you should have to accept people accusing you of not appreciating the value of human life just because you support the war.

I will appreciate people not to call anyone out, not to infer about what people's natures are, and to restrain the emotive nature of their writing. For those of you who aren't aware of this, the more emotive you are, the less credible your argument.

Ant.

 

[Dreadsox]

Matt;

What I DO know is that the US, through inaction or otherwise, supported Iraq. Perhaps more accurately; they did nothing.

I will believe you when you say who supplied who with what exactly, because I seriously am too troubled and too busy to look for figures that will dispute otherwise (and believe me, people can get figures from anywhere, if thats all they're worried about).

What I have heard from what I consider a reliable source, such as the BBC, is that the US did indeed supply certain weapons, because when taking sides with the Iran-Iraq war, they inevitably chose to side with Iraq. And I'm sorry, whether they sold weapons to Iraq or not is irrelevant, through some way or another, they sided with Iraq.

To my knowledge, there was dual use materials sold. And yes, the US through its allies, did turn a blind eye. They did remove Iraq from the terrorist list which began to allow this kind of technology to enter Iraq. I am not claiming innocence. There were reasons though that the allies felt they must coddle up to Saddam.

Peace

Matt

 

[Anthony]

Indeed. Please read my newly edited post. Clearly, the US had its reasons, however, I would like the world to be reminded of that fact before glorifying this war too much.

Thanks for at least acknowledging it, Dreadsox.

Ant.

 

[what a bomb!]

I remember seeing on the first anti-war march on the news, I think it was in the US, a woman holding a placard, on it was "The only Bush I trust is my own" sorry I know the war is no laughing matter but that made me laugh!

 

[diamond]

heres the deal.
that was then
this is now.

when saddam prove himself to be an incorrigible bastard the usa severied their ties w/him.

if u wanna bring out old shit from decades ago that only shows an current anti usa agenda, go ahead.
if you care about human rights of Iraqis read on.


explain that to the iraqi oppressed..that youre sorry their suffering but because what the usa did decades ago means you or your offspring are not entitled to human rights, yep youre screwed..

and the meat-grinder thing is not hype, 4 Iraqi American citizens who
fled Iraq under Saddam's rule explained this to Barbara Walters last night

Maybe you were at a rally.

Go ahead dismiss it as it goes against your polictical agenda, and ignore the human rights aspect of it as it doesnt sit well w/your agenda as well.

Just explain it to the liberated Iraqis at the right time

Peace-

DB9

 

[Salome]

heres the deal.
that was then
this is now.

that's an awfully dangerous thing to say in politics

 

[diamond]

Salome
as the world changes, people change.
change is a constant
and
change is inevitable.

Saddam has not changed.
The world has changed, therefore he has to be removed..

DB9

 

[Salome]

point being?

that Saddam was an insane maniac back then
but the US still supported him because that was then and this is now??

 

[diamond]

point being we gave him benifit of doubt, he failed.
were doing something about it now.

db9

 

[Anthony]

Yes, that was then. But it still happened. And if Saddam killing thousands in order to get into power and then thousands of Iranians doesn't show that he's an 'incorrigible bastard', I don't know what does.

This is what I refuse to accept; you accusing me of having an anti-usa agenda by 'bringing out old shit'. You remain obstinate in this approach that anyone who sees it for what it is is anti-american, and this is simply not right. I'm not bringing 'old shit' for the sake of anti-american propaganda, because I'm not anti-american. Prior to this argument and this war, I have supported the American position ardently regarding Afghanistan in particular. I simply choose to accept my fights wisely. Its a shame President Bush does not.

I do care about human rights, thank you kindly, and I do not need to prove myself, either. And no I was not at the rally, I am not a pacifist and I do not partake in marches, and I don't agree with the anti-war coalition's stance at the moment either. The first and only rally I was ever at was the one before the war, and that is because I do believe this war will create more damage for everyone concerned in the long run.

"Go ahead dismiss it as it goes against your polictical agenda, and ignore the human rights aspect of it as it doesnt sit well w/your agenda as well. "

I truly find this line of argument offensive, and if you continue to aggravate the situation by putting words and opinions in my mouth then neither of us will have happy times. Please do not assume of my agenda, indeed, don't presume that I even have one. And, please, do not accuse me of ignoring human rights. One would construe, by implication, that you think I don't respect human life. I sincerely hope you didn't mean that.

I am asking you politely; express your opinions in a cogent argument that does not presume to know what the other person holds dear to them. I have not been personal with you until you inserted the 'explain it to them' argument, please extend the same courteousy.

Ant.

 

[diamond]

okie doak, fair enough.

i feel for the Iraqi ppl and that they are being short-changed is all.
didnt mean to offend
diamond

 

[Anthony]

Thank you, Diamond.

Ant.

 

[U2girl]

heres the deal.
that was then
this is now.

Interesting point of view.

Who cares Iraq got US support in the Iraq/Iran struggle, who cares if they didn't remove him in the Gulf war - when there was even an uprising ready, but it didn't work as allied forces left -, right?
(because if you cared about people like you said, you should have gotten rid of him years ago. and while we're at it, not support so many dictators like you did just because it suited US at the time. not doing anything is just as bad as helping them.)

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

that famous picture of rumsfeld with saddam was taken shortly after saddam gassed his own people. i just thought id like to add that.

and i would also like to point out this thread has turned into a cesspool of propaganda. this thread was for anti-war supporters. hint hint.