Massive World Protests Tomorrow

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by The diplomat
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.

If the French can win, they should go for it.

[Jac de Molay]

You don't necessarily have to be a pacifist to protest the war. For example, I am primarily against the war because we have much more pressing concerns in our country that Bush seems to be ignoring. I supported the afghan conflict as a just war, and I think this one is not. I don't think thats being inconsistent or politically biased.

[Sava]

DetroitDave

And there's a huge consensus among the ignorant Hawks that anyone who's against military action as now proposed is against the removal of Saddam, or is a Saddam supporter.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
You don't necessarily have to be a pacifist to protest the war.

Who brought this idea up that you should be a pacifist? There are just and unjust wars, and this one is clearly the latter.

[The diplomat]

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

Obviously there are different shades of pacifism.

But the traditional definition of a pacifist is someone who opposes all forms of violence.

from the merriam-webster online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

Main Entry: pac·i·fism
Pronunciation: 'pa-s&-"fi-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific
Date: 1902
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

Note that the traditional definition says nothing about whether a war is preemptive or not. It simply says an opposition to war in general as a means of settling disputes.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Who brought this idea up that you should be a pacifist? There are just and unjust wars, and this one is clearly the latter.

So it is not just to remove a dangerous dictator who is oppressing his own people and has banned weapons of mass destruction?

NATO went to war against Milosevic to stop his war atrocities. Was that a just war? And if so, how come it is not a just war then to stop Saddam from his human rights violations that he commits against his own people?

In your view, what is a just war?

[Sava]

As a means of settling a dispute... exactly... that's my point. Not all pacifists would be against a war against Hitler, for instance. Just wanted to point out the shades of gray.

[Sava]

diplomat... NATO's war against Milosevic was not just. And there's a reason his Hague trial is going nowhere... because there were no atrocities outside of normal conflict casualties. Innocent civilians weren't being put to death in camps... illegal aliens and terrorists were simply being deported.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by The diplomat
So it is not just to remove a dangerous dictator who is oppressing his own people and has banned weapons of mass destruction?

You say you oppose the fact that he has banned weapons of mass destruction?

[DuncanK]

I think that a pacifist is a very specific person that is always against war. Everyone is against war in general, but support certain wars because they believe thay are just. But not everyone is a pacifist.

[Dis]

I just noticed something.

People who are anti-war are very vocal. And great at influencing the media.

But nobody vocally supports the war.

I say we organize a pro-war rally. I could make a sign that says killing makes me feel good.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sava
diplomat... NATO's war against Milosevic was not just. And there's a reason his Hague trial is going nowhere... because there were no atrocities outside of normal conflict casualties. Innocent civilians weren't being put to death in camps... illegal aliens and terrorists were simply being deported.

So then you would agree with me that the war against Milosevic was not just and should not have happened. I just wish people were as eager to take to the streets then as they seem to be now.

The webster definition of "just" is:

acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good

Thus a "just war" is a military confrontation that is acting or in conformity with what is morally upright.

A war against iraq would liberate the Iraqi people from terrible inhumane oppression. Liberating people from oppression is morally upright. Furthermore, a war against Iraq would eliminate weapons of mass destruction that could be used to kill countless innocent people. Surely, getting rid of weapons that could kill so many people is also a good cause. So in both counts a war against Iraq has moral goals.

Last, a war against Iraq would be conducted in such a way as to minimize collateral damage and innocent loss of life with precision guided munition etc. Surely fighting in a way that seeks to reduce collateral damage and innocent loss of life is also morally upright. Thus, the methods would be morally upright.

A war against Iraq would be moral in both its goals and means. So in all respects, it would be a just war.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by The diplomat
...
A war against Iraq would be moral in both its goals and means. So in all respects, it would be a just war.

*This is plain silly, all of it.

*A just war is a war of self-defense.

*No one appointed the United States to the office of World Judge.

*They have appointed themselves, which means they are usurpers.

*Usurpers, particularly powerful ones, are dangerous, and should be harshly dealt with.

[Ted Striker]

I agree, and we should do this the way we should probably give Austria back to Germany also.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I agree, and we should do this the way we should probably give Austria back to Germany also.

The Soviet Union contributed ten times as much to the defeat of Hitler as the US.

By your logic, the Soviet Union should have been appointed World Judge.

[Ted Striker]

Being the richest and most powerful nation on the planet, we ARE the world judge by default, so get used to it.

Eurocom will complain no matter what the US does.

The only mistake in this whole charade was giving stupid inspections a try and dragging the whole thing out.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Being the richest and most powerful nation on the planet, we ARE the world judge by default, so get used to it.

Others have said that, the most recent one being Hitler.

Most of the world disagreed, that´s why Adolf hasn´t been seen so much, lately.

[DinoDoc]

Speak of the devil and the devil comes.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
FRANCE:

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$46.5 billion (2000)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
2.57% (2002)

UNITED KINGDOM:

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$31.7 billion (2002)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
2.32% (2002)

Source: CIA World Factbook 2002

France actually has a GDP on a par with the UK, so I have trouble believing those figures.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Others have said that, the most recent one being Hitler.

Most of the world disagreed, that´s why Adolf hasn´t been seen so much, lately.

Last time I saw him he was hanging out in Austria.

[Ben Kenobi]

Note that the traditional definition says nothing about whether a war is preemptive or not. It simply says an opposition to war in general as a means of settling disputes.

As a Mennonite, I think I'm in the position to say something about pacifism. First of all, Mennonites are not allowed to perform combat service, although they are allowed non-combat service in the form of medics, etc.

This provides a balance in the case of war. If I agreed with the cause of the war, such as fighting Hitler against the Holocaust, I would serve in this capacity. If I did not agree, I would protest.

In any case, I hope that Saddam backs down to the US demands, and that the US accepts Saddam's capitulation without war. This is the ideal result.

[Sava]

Iraq should be liberated, Saddam should be blown to bits. There's no question of that. But this isn't about liberating people. The Bush admin has their own agenda. And frankly, I think they are too inept to execute a war properly in order to avoid massive civilian casualties. Plus, I think Saddam has chemical and bio weapons pointed at Israel and his finger on the button. I also don't think the US military can get to him in time, and he will be provoked into using them against Israel. Israel will probably make Baghdad glow in the dark; and poof, WW3.

Again, if it were certain that we could go in, get Saddam with minimal casualties and without that sort of nightmarish scenario happening, then I say go do it. But I don't trust the Bush admin, and as much faith as I have in the US military, I think that preventing Saddam from launching a WoMD attack is a crapshoot at best.

Believe me, I'm not against military action at this point because I'm a peacenik. I'm just being realistic about the logistical complications.

[Drake Tungsten]

I can't wait until the war has been successfully won and all the dumbass protestors have to look back and think about all the time and energy they wasted defending a brutal tyrant...

[Velociryx]

Well, in any case, I'd hardly call them massive. Even the best estimates of the organizers were 3 million people, world wide, with police and other authorities claiming about half that number. Given the total population of the nations participating in the festivities, it amounted to little more than a p*ss in the proverbial pot.

-=Vel=-

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
Chretien is playing Canadians for fools. He's delaying, but he will send. Every day they hint more at it.

What have you been smoking?

Plus, the old codger just deliberately hamstrung the military by announcing he'd be sending a battle group to Afghanistan for a year.

He's not saying anything to avoid annoying the Bushies.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Been there, seen that.

Ran out of arguments?

No, just tired of beating my head against a wall trying to get you to come up with a logical argument.

[KrazyHorse]

Plus, if they were going to send, they would have had to do so by now. It'll take weeks to get Canadian forces in position in meaningful numbers.

He's going to hem and haw until the war actually starts, at which point it'll be far too late to actually go.

[Velociryx]

Frogger - The Canadian Army has meaningful numbers?

(teasin' by the way)

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I can't wait until the war has been successfully won and all the dumbass protestors have to look back and think about all the time and energy they wasted defending a brutal tyrant...

Again, a dumb assertion...

Protesting this war isn't about defending Saddam just like the war itself isn't about oil. Their both stupid assertions and I wish people would stop making them.

[KrazyHorse]

Not meaningful in terms of overall operation...

But meaningful in terms of being able to field a thousand men or something with their own command etc.