Massive World Protests Tomorrow - Page 4

notyoueither · February 15, 2003, 05:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Are you going to answer my questions, or are you still trying to be evasive?

What question of obfuscation was that? Oh, master (of obfuscation).

Urban Ranger · February 15, 2003, 05:17

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
What question of obfuscation was that? Oh, master (of obfuscation).

Seeing that you are incapable of reading back through this thread, here is a recap of the relevant section:

NYE: And how much have Germany and France spent to defend themselves? How much did they spend to defend themselves?

Tassadar500: [replies with some figures]

NYE: Right Tass, IOW, they are depending on the US to maintain the security of the oil fields. Just as 20 years ago they relied on the US to deter the Red Army from moving West.

[snipped]

UR: Oil fields? Defending the oil fields from whom, may I ask? Will the Iraqis capture the North Sea oil fields?

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 05:17

Quote:

*Edit: My original response was more harsh then the young Floyd deserved.*

Bring it.

Quote:

The U.N. didn't have the right to demand Saddam withdraw from Kuwait? On what do you base that opinion?

The UN can posture all it wants to. The bottom line for me is that the US (and Britain, etc.) had no right to send in troops and wage war against a nation which had not attacked the US, and the US had no right to force US citizens to pay billions for this warmongering.

Alexander's Horse · February 15, 2003, 05:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Hey Eurocoms, do you realize you are being PLAYED by Saddam?

Its got nothing to do with Saddam, its got everything to do with the arrogant warmongering incompetent clumsy oafish redneck diplomacy of the Bush Administration.

They only have themselves to blame.

Big protests in Australia this weekend - up to 200,000 marched in Melbourne yesterday, over 10,000 protested here this morning and we're only a small town.

Oerdin · February 15, 2003, 05:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Homocidal dictator? Oh my side! Is there no end to your silliness? Keep those bald assertions coming, please.

Go ahead and keep denying the obvious UR. Upon my honor it helps your cause... truly it does.. *wink, wink*.

notyoueither · February 15, 2003, 05:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Seeing that you are incapable of reading back through this thread, here is a recap of the relevant section:

NYE: And how much have Germany and France spent to defend themselves? How much did they spend to defend themselves?

Tassadar500: [replies with some figures]

NYE: Right Tass, IOW, they are depending on the US to maintain the security of the oil fields. Just as 20 years ago they relied on the US to deter the Red Army from moving West.

[snipped]

UR: Oil fields? Defending the oil fields from whom, may I ask? Will the Iraqis capture the North Sea oil fields?

Right. And then

Geez, Bob. Maybe the guy who attacked two oil producing neighbours?

Duh!

Ludicrous? That would be the willful blindness of the quiet supporters of the homicidal dictator.

To which you asked some blitheringly idiotic question about some European power.

Now, what was your point?

Urban Ranger · February 15, 2003, 05:22

Okay.

That means you are not going to answer my question. I will wait until you do, but I will remind you of it later.

notyoueither · February 15, 2003, 05:23

Ohhhh, goooody!

Urban Ranger · February 15, 2003, 05:24

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
To which you asked some blitheringly idiotic question about some European power.

That is applicable to you, by asking the defense budget of France and Germany.

Oerdin · February 15, 2003, 05:25

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
The UN can posture all it wants to. The bottom line for me is that the US (and Britain, etc.) had no right to send in troops and wage war against a nation which had not attacked the US, and the US had no right to force US citizens to pay billions for this warmongering.

So nation is allowed to take part unless they are directly attack? So if Germany decides to invade Poland then France and Britain have no right to try to prevent it?

Urban Ranger · February 15, 2003, 05:26

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Ohhhh, goooody!

I don't expect more than a childish response from you, NYE. You have been arguing like a kid.

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 05:26

Quote:

So nation is allowed to take part unless they are directly attack? So if Germany decides to invade Poland then France and Britain have no right to try to prevent it?

The government of Britain has no right to force its citizens to either fund, fight, or die for Poland. If individuals wish to form "free units", arm and fund and ship themselves overseas to fight, that's fine.

notyoueither · February 15, 2003, 05:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

That is applicable to you, by asking the defense budget of France and Germany.

ACKK! I am wounded...

notyoueither · February 15, 2003, 05:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

I don't expect more than a childish response from you, NYE. You have been arguing like a kid.

Are you completely mentally defective?

Oerdin · February 15, 2003, 05:30

I enjoyed being in the debate club when I was in college. The thing is though that colleges have entrance exams, interviews, and intelligence tests which people must pass before they are admitted. 'Poly doesn't do any of this which means these forums can be much more tedious.

Agathon · February 15, 2003, 11:21

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

I think you're freakin moron with more of the 'my way or the highway' attitude than most Americans ever exhibit.

You are not in a position to call anyone else a "moron". And it's "a freakin' moron" you grammatically inept twit.

My position is that I simply don't have any time for people who ridicule others for standing up for their beliefs (whatever those beliefs may be - so it isn't "my way or the highway" as you put it so eloquently in your gutter patois). People who believe something and are prepared to do something about it have character, people who do neither are pathetic, gutless losers who leech off the achievements of the others (women's suffrage, civil rights, etc. etc.).

I respect people who have the opposite view from myself if they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is, I have no respect for the rest - they are simply a waste of time to convince (because they will never do anything). And I definitely don't have any respect for Asher, who enjoys ridiculing people for bothering to care about something. But then again, he's pea-brained computer nerd who doesn't give a stuff about anyone but himself.

Actually the forum looks so much more intelligent with him on the "ignore" list.

Agathon · February 15, 2003, 11:33

Hee Hee

At least half a million in London and a cop just said that it is "well beyond that" perhaps over a million.

Who's the moral majority now?

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 11:36

If that's true I doubt if Blair can keep his stance. That would be ok with me.

General Ludd · February 15, 2003, 11:42

I'll be leaving for the Toronto protest in an hour or so.

Don't mind NYE, he's just bitter.

JCG · February 15, 2003, 13:01

Unfortunately, for every honest pacifist protestor who is against war in all its shapes and forms, there always are several hypocrites who turn around and approve of war when it matches their ideological objectives/affinity.

Not to mention the fact that many of the protesters apparently try and make Saddam sound like a much better ruler/person/etc. than Bush.

So if America is "the Great Satanic Bloodlusting Evil Empire", then is Iraq supposed to be "the Great Peaceful Angel of Brotherly Love"....?

Thus while I personally loathe going to a war that will surely harm the Iraqi people, under the current circumstances I will not support these biased protests.

DinoDoc · February 15, 2003, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
What are your plans?

Nothing special. Maybe go see Daredevil. Probably also wonder when I'll see people that go to these marches that don't sound like gibbering morons when they get there.

DanS · February 15, 2003, 13:14

BD, the support for the war has been decreasing. There will be massive protests even in the US cities.

The support among the American people hasn't decreased.

The diplomat · February 15, 2003, 13:27

These anti-war protests are really pissing me off. Where were they during the Balkans war? How come there were not these massive protests when Clinton took military action against Milosevic? They are so hypocritical: it's ok for a democrat president to go to war against dictators, but it is not ok for a republican president to do the same?

Many of these protesters are biased against the US and Bush. They are not protesting because of the war, they are protesting because they hate Bush.

You can say what you want about Bush, but he is not the bad guy here. Bush is not the dictator. Saddam is. As JCG pointed out, these protesters paint Bush in worse light as Saddam. That is outrageous! Saddam is the evil dictator that gases his own people and is building weapons of mass destruction that would tthreaten the entire region. Bush is trying to stop that from hapening. You may disagree that war is the answer but to equate Bush with Hitler as some of these protesters do, is simply outrageous and stupid. If anyone is like Hitler it's Saddam.

These protesters are completely biased and it's idiotic.

Jac de Molay · February 15, 2003, 13:34

Quote:

These protesters are completely biased and it's idiotic.

Let me get this straight: Since they are not protesting all wars, they shouldn't be protesting any wars?

I agree that they're many wackos with personal agendas who cant string together a coherent argument against this war. But there are many, many good reasons for protesting what is going on here.

edit typo

Lawrence of Arabia · February 15, 2003, 13:34

Theres one in San Francisco. ill prolly not go. I dont agree with 9/10 of the stuff that those people stand for and at the end some jerks from the libertarian/anarchist party start looting and burning stuff.

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 13:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
at the end some jerks from the libertarian/anarchist party start looting and burning stuff.

Good point

Sava · February 15, 2003, 13:40

David, your logic on what a government can and can't do or expect from its people is severely flawed. Government's primary function is to protect the people, yet it can't require the people to participate in their own protection? I agree with the notion that drafting for a foreign, political war (such as Vietnam) is wrong. But helping out an ally is a just cause. Saying the British people had no obligation to help Poland after Hitler's invasion is just plain wrong. You always complain about how the poor benefit from taxes that are stolen from the rich, yet your position here is completely hypocritical. The people benefit from the protection of the government, yet don't have to contribute to it?

Mandatory military service and the draft are sometimes necessary and completely justified. Your assertion that they are wrong in such a general way is wrong, and given your stance on taxes, completely hypocritical.

Comrade Tribune · February 15, 2003, 13:43

Ten thousands protested in Vienna. A friend of mine distributed leaflets (drafted by me

), calling for an anti-US plebiscite.

An Austrian paper recently said that 97% over here are against the war. Great!

But a Swiss paper said that, of all Europeans, the Swiss dislike the US most, even more than Austrians do. Pity!

We must overtake the Swiss, and become #1, I say!!!

The diplomat · February 15, 2003, 13:45

Quote:

Originally posted by DetroitDave

Let me get this straight: Since they are not protesting all wars, they shouldn't be protesting any wars?

If they really are pacifists, they should protests all wars. That's the definition of pacifism. The fact that they only protest some wars proves that they are politically motivated and biaised. They only oppose wars that don't suit their political agendas. Heck, I bet if France were to go to war against the US to stop our "evil anti-environmentalist policies", I bet these wackos would be all for it.

Sava · February 15, 2003, 13:47

Pacifism is not against the use of force at all cost and all situations. It is against the use of pre-emptive offensive force.