Merged: Anti-war protesters are going too far + should be kept quiet

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I agree with what amna said...I come here but I rarely post because it's frutile.
If people can't see how war will only cause more aggrivation and dissent and NOT peace, I will not try and post and post and post in an effort to persuade them.
Not even the world wars produced peace. Hiltler and his regime was overthrown but the ensuing years brought more and more turmoil derived from that war.

If you think the Middle East will be a peaceful land after the US has gone and dealt with them peacemeal and imposed democracy on everyone then you are sadly mistaken. I will bet my life on the fact that after this war the Iraqis' situation will hardly be eased.

The idea that implanting democracy into "conquered" foreign countries is the way to go is erroneuous. It just sad that we never learn from the past.

10 or 15 years from now I estimate that many of the "pro-war" people here (sickening term, really) will have a change of heart once the full picture has been brought into the light.
 
This artucle is a good example why I won't shut up now that we are at war.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15453

Here is a smidgen:

The following Saturday, after U.S. forces had shocked and awed Baghdad and the rest of the world with a brutal all-night pummeling, a more august group of speakers took turns at the podium in the chapel at American University to denounce Bush's doctrine of preemptive war and the imperialist posture implied therein. A Nobel Peace Prize winner, retired military officers, Vietnam veterans, former intelligence agents, scholars, celebrated leakers of Pentagon Papers ? one by one they laid out their arguments in the language and environment of the academy. ...

"The White House policy is frightening, and it basically spells out empire for the U.S. I don't know what else to call it," says Sheehan-Miles. "This is such a dramatic change in what American foreign policy is all about that we should be having a huge public debate about it. And we're not ? all we're having a debate about are these other things: Saddam Hussein, regime change ? something does need to be done about Saddam Hussein, but this isn't it."


Coming from a combat veteran, Sheehan-Miles' words might carry extra weight for the 76 percent of Americans who now support the war. But if Sheehan-Miles, who left the Army as a conscientious objector after his unit's killing of undefended Iraqis left him badly shaken, isn't convincing enough for Middle America, there's always Ret. Rear Admiral Gene LaRocque.


LaRocque survived the destruction of his ship at Pearl Harbor to fight in World War II and command a nuclear-armed carrier task force during the Cold War. Later he was a planner in the Pentagon. No squishy-minded peacenik, he.


On Saturday, LaRocque stood at the microphone in full Navy regalia and in mild, avuncular tones excoriated those who would cast aspersions on the right to dissent in wartime, the burgeoning militarism taking root here and the nation's "pride and joy" in its precision weapons. And he criticized one of the main principles enshrined in the Bush doctrine: That it is America's "responsibility to lead" the rest of the world to freedom.


"Is it the sole responsibility of the U.S. to decide which nations' form of government will stand and which will fall?" he asked. "Is it the responsibility of the U.S. to kill or destroy to bring about a change of government? I think not. I don't believe George Bush has the right to kill one person to bring about a change in government."

The veterans really make sense.
 
Scarletwine,

Maybe they WILL shut up if they are declred terrorist

and given LIFE SENTENSES.

Antiterror bill meets opposition at hearing

03/25/03

HARRY ESTEVE

SALEM -- A bill that would define violent protesters as terrorists and subject them to possible life imprisonment came under attack Monday at a packed and sometimes tense legislative hearing.

Antiwar activists and civil libertarians showed up in force to criticize Senate Bill 742, which they said contains overly broad language and gives police expanded powers to investigate people based on ethnicity.

"We are living in the McCarthy era all over again," said Patty Caldwell, an antiwar activist from Welches. "Then, you were called a communist. Now, you're called a terrorist sympathizer."

The statements came during the bill's first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Committee Chairman Sen. John Minnis, R-Wood Village, author of the bill, threatened to clear the hearing room after repeated bursts of applause for speakers and interruptions shouted from the audience.

Minnis said he introduced the measure to put all crimes that could be construed as terrorism into a single law with tough punishment guidelines, and to require Oregon police agencies to cooperate with federal investigations into terrorists.

But the wording of the bill left many concerned that it could be applied to relatively minor acts of vandalism or misbehavior during a demonstration. The bill applies to acts of violence committed while someone is disrupting commerce, transportation, schools or universities.

Anyone convicted of terrorism would get an automatic life sentence with a 25-year minimum before being considered for parole.

"Many of the protesters arrested last week in Portland for misdemeanor conduct may have qualified for prosecution" under SB 742, said Susan Russell of the Oregon Criminal Lawyers Association. Crimes, such as throwing a rock through a window, or lighting flags on fire while demonstrating, do not warrant potential life sentences, she said.

After the hearing, the judiciary committee's three Democratic members spoke against the bill, all but killing its chances of surviving intact. All Senate committees are divided equally between Democrats and Republicans, and a bill must get a majority of committee votes to move forward.

"This bill chips away at the very freedom we profess to enjoy in the face of terrorism," said Sen. Charlie Ringo, D-Beaverton. "I would not want our servicemen in the Middle East and elsewhere to return and find that the freedoms they are risking their lives for overseas have been damaged while entrusted to the care of the Oregon Senate."

Sen. Ted Ferrioli of John Day, one of three Republicans on the committee, said Oregon law needs to be changed to more clearly define acts of civil disobedience and acts of terrorism. But two other Democrats on the committee, Vicki Walker of Eugene and Ginny Burdick of Portland, said they won't support the bill.

Minnis said he will rewrite portions of the bill in an attempt to address concerns about the broad language and role Oregon police agencies would have in federal terror investigations. No additional hearings have been scheduled on the bill.

"Unfortunately, there's a lot of hysteria associated with some of the original language" of the bill, he said. "I will bring something back and see if it works." Harry Esteve: 503-221-8234; harryesteve@news.oregonian.com
 
Wow. I always thought Oregon was a fairly liberal state...
 
:censored: me.

You have got to be kidding. I ask for all of you on this forum to at least uphold our right to discuss, argue, dissent, ect.

I swear if I didn't believe the discourse we have had on this forum, leading up to war and until now a God (one of his greatest works) right, I would have to resort to leaving the country of my love or to jopin in civil disobediance with others.

I hope this is more propaganda.
Let us remember we will be one nation again, with the same economic, education. and poor homeless, AIDS infected problems we had before the war.
 
Last edited:
It makes me sick to read that. And FYI, Oregon is pretty 50\50 when it comes to liberal/conservative. There are pockets of very liberal (Eugene), and just barely liberal (Portland), but the rest of the state is pretty conservative.
 
ppl dont find really themselves until they fully embrace Republicanism.:angry::dance::wave:
:

thank u-
diamond
bruno:):wave:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/images/20030325-2_d032503-298h.jpg

PS- "am i buggin ya, well I didnt mean to bug ya MISTER":mac:
20030325-2_d032503-298h.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting that article, Deep.

Can a thing like that really get the majority of votes?!?

Nice article, Scarletwine. I agree!
 
Just In ....

During the press conference it was reported that Dick Cheney's daughter is going to Bagdad to act as a human shield. Talk about losing the PR campaign at home.

Anybody have any links for this?

Also the General admitted to using DU in a small portion of our bombs, missiles. He also said the dust from the bombs contain contaniments in close contact. This puts our troops at danger as well as Iraqi's for, sorry I forget how many B of years.
 
Re: Just In ....

Scarletwine said:
During the press conference it was reported that Dick Cheney's daughter is going to Bagdad to act as a human shield. Talk about losing the PR campaign at home.

Anybody have any links for this?

Cheney: No daughters as human shields
From the International Desk
Published 3/25/2003 12:22 PM
View printer-friendly version


WASHINGTON, March 25 (UPI) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's office denied reports on Tuesday that either of his daughters was even considering becoming a human shield in Iraq.

"Neither daughter even has plans to travel to that region, let alone Iraq," a member of the vice president's staff told United Press International in Washington. Elizabeth, 36, is married with three children in Washington, where she is deputy assistant secretary for Near-East affairs at the State Department. Mary, 34, has just completed her master's degree of business administration at Denver University.

Reports earlier on Tuesday suggested Cheney was on his way to Jordan to dissuade one of his daughters from joining the so-called human shield volunteers in Iraq. The shields are civilians, usually foreigners, who place themselves around hospitals, schools and other installations in an effort to keep opposing military forces from targeting them.

The United States has reiterated that it does not target civilian facilities and indeed has no plans to during its operations in Iraq.

When asked where the daughters were now, the staff member said, "Both the vice president and his daughters are in the United States."

A U.S. Embassy spokesman in Amman, the Jordanian capital, also denied that Cheney was on his way to Jordan: "The embassy has no information that the U.S. vice president will arrive in Jordan Tuesday to convince one of his daughters not to travel to Iraq to join human shields opposed to war," he said.


Copyright ? 2001-2003 United Press International
 
I met someone who was going to be a human shield at a party about a month ago. He was leaving the next day for Baghdad. He seemed kind of lost (although I don't know how someone who is going off to be a human shield should seem). I didn't know what to say...so I just said, "Well, nice to meet you...take care..."

:|
 
HUman shield? Not only is that person quite stupid, but if he survives and comes back to the US, he should be charged with treason. It is one thing to protest the war; it is quite another to take steps to prevent our armed forces from carrying out their mission. By placing himself in that situation, he is making it harder for the soldiers to do their jobs.
 
Everybody has a right to express their opinions -- but please don't shout it in my face or block my way in the streets -- then you are abusing my right. Every right carries with it the need to handle it with consideration and care.
 
80sU2isBest said:
HUman shield? Not only is that person quite stupid, but if he survives and comes back to the US, he should be charged with treason. It is one thing to protest the war; it is quite another to take steps to prevent our armed forces from carrying out their mission. By placing himself in that situation, he is making it harder for the soldiers to do their jobs.

The "human shields" are not defending military targets. It is my understanding that they are positioned around one of Baghdad's power plants. And given the fact that the US has left the lights on in Baghdad, power plants are not on the target list.
 
meegannie said:
Thanks.

STOP THE WAR ON IRAQ!
Gather at 12 noon
March on the White House

On Saturday, April 12, join the tens of thousands of
people of conscience who will surround the White House.
The whole world is watching to see if the people of the
United States can intensify the power of the anti-war
movement at the moment that the Bush Administration is
intending to slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi people
and occupy their country. We urge every anti-war organizer
and concerned person to bring your friends, neighbors and
family members to this all-important mobilization on April
12.
 
nbcrusader said:


The "human shields" are not defending military targets. It is my understanding that they are positioned around one of Baghdad's power plants. And given the fact that the US has left the lights on in Baghdad, power plants are not on the target list.

If civilians wore green clothes and the military wore pink polka dot, it would be easy to distinguish, and there wouldn't be such a problem, but in this war, in which Saddam's forces masquerade as civilians, it makes the task at hand even more slippery.
 
This all reminds me of the old "Moral Majority". While there are many with well intentioned beliefs, the anti-war movement is neither a majority or all "anti-war".
 
Tens of thousands is not off base. It may not be actual casualities from our bombing, but it incorporates the casualities after the war. From lack of water, as in Basr, refugee deaths, ect. It's only been a week and we can't get humanitarian help in. The UN has published an estimate of 300,000 to 500,000 deaths due to the war.

And I take your link to be insulting in the least.
 
I am so tired of reading things like this.


Scarletwine said:

Thanks.

STOP THE WAR ON IRAQ!
Gather at 12 noon
March on the White House

On Saturday, April 12, join the tens of thousands of
people of conscience who will surround the White House.


Please JOIN us in support of our President on April 13. Join tens of thousands of the people without a conscience as we blindly support the President. It is obvious that we are uneducated and not informed on the topic and must all be hillbilly's or from rural America because we support our President and our troops.




Scarletwine said:

The whole world is watching to see if the people of the
United States can intensify the power of the anti-war
movement at the moment that the Bush Administration is
intending to slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi people
and occupy their country.

Yes, because I blindly support the President, I and others like me hope that the world can see that the policy of sanctions, containment and disarmament were a disaster. Sanctions have killed over 250,000 people in 12 years. President Bush has brought this disasterous policy to an end and our troops are on their way to bring relief to the people of Iraq. Now everyone will be receiving the food and medical supplies that they have been denied by the Dictator Saddam Hussein. A man who has killed more Iraqi citizens than any American President.


Scarletwine said:

We urge every anti-war organizer
and concerned person to bring your friends, neighbors and
family members to this all-important mobilization on April
12.

Bring your friends neighbors, relatives and family members to march in support of our President and the members of the Armed Forces who have put their lives on the line not only for us, but for the citizens of Iraq!
 
Scarletwine said:
Tens of thousands is not off base. It may not be actual casualities from our bombing, but it incorporates the casualities after the war. From lack of water, as in Basr, refugee deaths, ect. It's only been a week and we can't get humanitarian help in. The UN has published an estimate of 300,000 to 500,000 deaths due to the war.


The United States and its allies wanted to bring in relief, and guess what, some of it started arriving yesterday. It would have arrived sooner, but unfortunately, we have soldiers dressing up as civilians killing Americans. Kind of hard to bring relief.....but Saddam loves a good humanitarian crisis so that it can build up more hatred towards your country.

Oh...by the way...who shut off the water? GUESS?????

If you did not guess Saddam.....guess again.
 
I didn't imply the number of casualities was due only to US forces. Nor did I imply that we didn't want to get humanitarian aid to Basr. I do believe the troops want to help the Iraqi people as much as possible.
I believe those calculations also take into account the inhumanity of Sadaam and his possible actions, including the use of chemical weapons (God forbid).
Because I oppose the war, doesn't mean I am pro-Sadaam. Every sentence on the effects of war isn't a hug for him.
I care about human life.
 
Dreadsox said:


Yes, because I blindly support the President, I and others like me hope that the world can see that the policy of sanctions, containment and disarmament were a disaster. Sanctions have killed over 250,000 people in 12 years. President Bush has brought this disasterous policy to an end and our troops are on their way to bring relief to the people of Iraq. Now everyone will be receiving the food and medical supplies that they have been denied by the Dictator Saddam Hussein. A man who has killed more Iraqi citizens than any American President.

Dread,

Your number is WAY off. conservative estimates put the numbers dead from being under Saddam's rule at over 1.2 million and counting.

and to those that continue to talk about how many people will die due to military force. Just remember that it could have all been avoided if Saddam would have followed any of the last 16 UN resolutions.
 
womanfish said:


Dread,

Your number is WAY off. conservative estimates put the numbers dead from being under Saddam's rule at over 1.2 million and counting.

and to those that continue to talk about how many people will die due to military force. Just remember that it could have all been avoided if Saddam would have followed any of the last 16 UN resolutions.

This is my number, I have my reasons for lowballing, and I do know it is more than likely much higher than this.

Peace
 
Scarletwine said:
Tens of thousands is not off base. It may not be actual casualities from our bombing, but it incorporates the casualities after the war. From lack of water, as in Basr, refugee deaths, ect. It's only been a week and we can't get humanitarian help in. The UN has published an estimate of 300,000 to 500,000 deaths due to the war.

And I take your link to be insulting in the least.

Why do you take it to be insulting? Did you make up the figures? Did you write that call to protest yourself? If so, I apologize for the way I worded it. I thought you copied and pasted it from somewhere. If you did write it, maybe you should learn how to get your point across without baseless incindiary statements like
"Bush Administration is intending to slaughter tens of thousands of Iraqi people". I find statements like that insulting.

You said it may not be as a direct result fo our bombing, but the call to protest certainly attributes it directly to the American use of violence..."Slaughtering tens of thousands" doesn't excatly sound like it's talking about starvation.

The starvation isn't even our fault, either. Saddam Hussein has access to food..he could have fed his people all of these years and chose not to, because that's one way to keep them under his thumb. Iraq was an EXTREMELY wealthy country till he took over.
 
Back
Top Bottom