Anti-war protesters, answer me this!

The diplomat · January 18, 2003, 21:19

I hear the anti-war protesters say that they just want world peace and and an end to violence and conflict.

If this is true, how come they never have big protest to urge North Korea to halt its threats and nuke programs? Surely North Korea is threatening world peace. If the protesters want peace, how come they never protest against Saddam who has hurt peace, or Clinton who bombed Serbia?

How come they only bash the US and Israel?

I think it is pretty clear that these anti-war protests are nor really about iraq or world peace. The groups sponsoring these protests are mostly ultra-left who hate Bush and see this as an opportunity to bash the US. They don't care about world peace!

Nubclear · January 18, 2003, 21:26

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
urge North Korea to halt its threats

Which were made in light of the US stance that it will never negotiate (though thats beginning to crack.)

Quote:

and nuke programs?

Every nation will and have the right to have nukes.

Quote:

against Saddam who has hurt peace,

Because Saddam wont budge no matter what the protestors say. Though I should point out many people have condmened him.

Quote:

or Clinton who bombed Serbia?

Already protested.

Quote:

They don't care about world peace!

A few dont care about world peace. But most do. Plus, Iraq right now is the hot issue. It owuld be incredibly stupid to "protest" Iraq invading Kuwait unless he actually does it again.

Faboba · January 18, 2003, 21:32

Perhaps because they despise hypocrisy.

I'd be in favour of the US bombing Iraq if Bush came out and said;

"I want to bomb Iraq because **** Cheney says it's a good idea."

And then for **** Cheney to explain that it will greatly benifit the US economy ( and consequently, to a lesser extent the rest of the western world ) if they were to do so because of the extra jobs that could be created in the arms industry and then the money which could be made from selling arms to Iraq after all their current ones are destroyed as happened after all previous attacks.

The problem with the 'war on Iraq' is the reasons presented for it aren't logical. They need to properly explain the financial ( and true ) motive for the attack before it can be supported by intelligent people.

Faboba · January 18, 2003, 21:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Faboba

**** Cheney

I can't say ****? It's the guy's name for **** sake!

reds4ever · January 18, 2003, 21:53

funny, Richard Cheney seems perfectly acceptable!

with the nukes it's a case of 'wev'e got them, but you arn't allowed too', is it sensible for NK to have nukes, no, but then again is it sensible for any country to have nukes?

tandeetaylor · January 18, 2003, 22:12

No, **** Cheney is fine.

Faboba · January 18, 2003, 22:23

It can lead to some confusion as to what four letter word I'm using. For instance, you wouldn't know if I was simply saying '**** Cheney' or '**** Cheney!'

That said... **** **** Cheney!

Worthingtons · January 18, 2003, 22:39

Come on guys, if you has some small nation with several Oil resources, that were getting all cocky, and you were having to trade with some other nation for looads fo gold per turn, you'd send you're carriers over there right away

Faboba · January 18, 2003, 22:54

Good point. Any passifist leanings within me dissolve the second I have power when I become a harsh, tyrannical despot bent on world conquest with all the scruples of a Machievellian Prince. If I was in command of America I would take control of the press, declare martial law, rid myself of democracy, begin massive armament and take over Iraq, Japan, the UK, Mexico and Cuba.

All things considered... Bush isn't all that warmongering.

Boris Godunov · January 18, 2003, 23:03

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
I hear the anti-war protesters say that they just want world peace and and an end to violence and conflict.

If this is true, how come they never have big protest to urge North Korea to halt its threats and nuke programs? Surely North Korea is threatening world peace. If the protesters want peace, how come they never protest against Saddam who has hurt peace

Maybe because they're smart enough to realize that civil protests in a foreign nation, and one that is viewed by these countries as an antagonistic enemy, would do jack squat to influence these dictators half a world away?

In a democracy, civil protests have, historically, been able to alter the course of events, since democratic leaders are somewhat beholding to the people. Why should a foreign dictator care about protests here? Has a civil protest here ever made a damn bit of difference to a foreign despot?

What a ludicrous question.

orange · January 18, 2003, 23:07

worst troll ever

Thrawn05 · January 18, 2003, 23:15

I remember somthing a few weeks ago that the group ANSWER is funded by some US pro communist group.

Any of your friends Tassadar5000?

Nubclear · January 18, 2003, 23:15

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
worst troll ever

I agree. I've seen much better even from Speer.

Faboba · January 18, 2003, 23:22

Why are so many so harshly prejudiced against communists? Anyone who has read Marx' manifesto has to admit the quality of the argument and the veracity of the observations even if the conclusion is a little... irrational.

Az · January 18, 2003, 23:24

I agree, sort of.

The groups that act against war on Iraq, Israel in general, etc., almost never even say anything about places like the Sudan, where scores of people are killed all the time. I don't think that this is due to the fact that there is no chance to change in policy there. I think is that there are some interest groups, and there is a large movement of people that play along with a certain act, whether they conciously do it, or just don't have any higher brain functions of their own. It's not like they're chose to go to the demonstration against the US position because they know they have a shot at changing policy. In entire forums, BBs, pages on the web there is hardly any mention of other conflicts at all.

These of course should be separated from the "it's none of our bussiness" group.

Thrawn05 · January 18, 2003, 23:26

I only saying what I heard.

MRT144 · January 18, 2003, 23:27

ive seen better from boddington's...

Faboba · January 18, 2003, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

I have to ask; Why does Ronald McDonald ( nb; beloved icon of American culture ) have a butcher knife dripping blood?

Kingof the Apes · January 18, 2003, 23:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Faboba
Why are so many so harshly prejudiced against communists?

Look at what the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea did to thier people (and sometimes still do today) under communism. If the two biggest posterboys for communism (Russia, China) acted like that, i'm not surprised communism is regarded as bad.

Oerdin · January 18, 2003, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
How come they only bash the US and Israel?

Let's face it. 90%+ of them are just stupid me to political leftists. They haven't sat down and seriously thought about the implications of their position and I doubt they really want to.

It is so easy to follow the crowd and do what ever is "in" because you'll never have to think for yourself nor will you have to articulate a policy which takes into account the shades of grey.

DinoDoc · January 18, 2003, 23:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Faboba
I have to ask; Why does Ronald McDonald ( nb; beloved icon of American culture ) have a butcher knife dripping blood?

He snatched the pic from a PETA site.

Nubclear · January 19, 2003, 00:10

Quote:

It is so easy to follow the crowd and do what ever is "in"

Right now conservatism and so called "patriotism" is "in"

Oerdin · January 19, 2003, 00:15

I'm not a conservative never have been and I probably never will be. Nor do I equate knocking off Saddam with attacking terrorists. I just see him as a perpetual thorn in our side that should be eliminated as an example to others who are thinking of acting outside of the exceptable limits.

Stalin was right. If you hang a man every once in a while the rest will work even harder to please.

MRT144 · January 19, 2003, 00:22

oerdin, so you want our country to be more in league with stalin like tactics?

Edan · January 19, 2003, 00:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Maybe because they're smart enough to realize that civil protests in a foreign nation, and one that is viewed by these countries as an antagonistic enemy, would do jack squat to influence these dictators half a world away?

[SNIP]

Why should a foreign dictator care about protests here? Has a civil protest here ever made a damn bit of difference to a foreign despot?

Since so many people in the world seem to think that Bush has become a dictator, why all the protests throughout the world against Bush?

And not everyone who protests does it because they expect it to make a difference. Some people protest simply because it's what they believe strongly in.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2003, 00:46

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
I hear the anti-war protesters say that they just want world peace and and an end to violence and conflict.

If this is true, how come they never have big protest to urge North Korea to halt its threats and nuke programs? Surely North Korea is threatening world peace.

The DPRK isn't threatening world peace. Is Europe, Africa, or North American in any way threatened by the DPRK? No. Would the United States be threatened if we didn't have 37,000 troops in the RoK? No. Is the DPRK actually threatening to attack anyone? No. Would protests against the DPRK have any effect on the DPRK? No.

Quote:

If the protesters want peace, how come they never protest against Saddam who has hurt peace, or Clinton who bombed Serbia?

How come they only bash the US and Israel?

Hussein's not a threat to anyone but his neighbors, and not a serious threat to any of them but Kuwait. Kuwait is actually a worse place than Iraq, so why should we give a damn about Kuwait?

We did protest against the war on Serbia.

We bash the US because the US is an imperialist power, acting in the narrow self-interests of certain American elites (not even in the national interest) and Israel because they are the largest recipient of American foreign aid (with which they carry out a campaign of ethnic cleansing).

Azazel, exactly what effect would protests in the US have on the war in Sudan? There are groups working to end slavery in Sudan as well as trying to relieve the food crisis in Southern Sudan. While I think that we should be arming the Christians and Animists in the South, I can't really say it would be in their best interests seeing as the US would only aid those groups it felt best represented American elites' interests. Given the weight of history, those groups would tend to be rather nasty and dicatorial . . . which is still better than the genocidal Arab government.

Oerdin, in case you hadn't noticed, being a protestor and leftist hasn't been in in over thirty years in the US. I'm sure there are some people who fit your discription, but if the last anti-war movement is anything to go by, most people have a deep aversion to having murder committted in their name. The people who will suffer most are the Iraqi civilians, and most anti-war activists are very aware of this.

Thrawn05, every anti-war movement in the last hundred years has been organized and led by socialists and communists. Why should this one be any different? Hell, both Russian revolutions started out as anti-war protests.

Zkribbler · January 19, 2003, 00:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Let's face it. 90%+ of them are just stupid me to political leftists. They haven't sat down and seriously thought about the implications of their position and I doubt they really want to.

It is so easy to follow the crowd and do what ever is "in" because you'll never have to think for yourself nor will you have to articulate a policy which takes into account the shades of grey.

By George! You're right. Let's all follow President Bush and bleat, "Peace is good. War is better. Peace is good. War is better. Peace is good. War is better..." and "We know Saddam has weapons because we can't find them. We know Saddam has weapons because we can't find them."

Oerdin · January 19, 2003, 00:53

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
oerdin, so you want our country to be more in league with stalin like tactics?

No, but I would like them it to be more like Nicolo Machiavelli. You reward those who act the way you like and make a very bad end to people like Saddam who move against our interests.

That's the way to deal with situations like the current one in Iraq. It will definately make the North Koreans think long and hard before they make to much of a fuss.

chequita guevara · January 19, 2003, 01:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
No, but I would like them it to be more like Nicolo Machiavelli. You reward those who act the way you like and make a very bad end to people like Saddam who move against our interests.

Why? What's it to you? What has Hussein done that effects you personally or anyone you know? Aside from the opportunity of a few thousand ultra-rich, exactly whose interests benefit from this policy you advocate?

Oerdin · January 19, 2003, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Zkribbler
By George! You're right. Let's all follow President Bush and bleat, "Peace is good. War is better. Peace is good. War is better. Peace is good. War is better..." and "We know Saddam has weapons because we can't find them. We know Saddam has weapons because we can't find them."

Zkribbler: No one has advocated blind obedience. What I have done is question the motivation of protesters and the amount of thought they've put into their political philosophy. If they really want peace then why support dictators who have repeatedly attacked their neighbors? An intelligent person who ponders the long term results of this policy will figure out that this will only encourage other would be aggressionists to us force to achieve their ends.

The correct policy is to reward those who act in western interests and punish those countries (like Iraq) who have acted against western interests. This will result in fewer wars in the long term and thus fewer lives lost in war. Shouldn't that be our long term goal?

You may not like the U.S. being the world's policeman but it is a role which someone in this world needs to play. Sure, it means the U.S. gets a larger say in how offending countries are dealt with but the Pax American is fairly benevolent.