Are you Pro-War or Anti-War?

Dominikos · March 21, 2003, 20:27

I'm surprised no one has posted a thread of this nature before.

Let's see how many here are against the war, how many are supporters and how many are
fence-sitters (the ones who ruin the polls)

Please, I ask you not to turn this thread into a flame-war as I am aware that many people are passionate in regards to this issue. Remember, you will be exposing yourself.

Let the Polls begin!!

My stance: I was against the war before it began, but now that it has begun, I wish the forces best of luck and for the conflict to be over as QUICKLY as possible.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

Ming · March 21, 2003, 20:33

Uhhhh... but it has been done before

But since the war has started, and you do provide a different option... let's see how it goes.

And anybody even ATTEMPTING to start a flame war or starts throwing insults around will be restricted quickly.

Oh... and Dom... try making that change again... I think I solved your problem.

jolair · March 21, 2003, 20:33

Anti-war

Al'Kimiya · March 21, 2003, 20:37

Pro-Israel

Boris Godunov · March 21, 2003, 20:40

Anti-war before the invasion, and still against the war on principle. I hope now that the dye is cast that there are minimal casualties all-round and our soldiers come home ASAP.

Gangerolf · March 21, 2003, 20:42

pro-choice

Harovan · March 21, 2003, 20:46

I was anti war before it begun. Now that it has started, I wish, that it may soon end with a victory of the coalition, as the less of two evils. Not that I changed my mind about the purpose of the war, it is still an unjust act of aggression for me. But I wish to prevent ten thousands of civilians to be slaughtered by both sides in a long war, so let this nightmare end soon. My opinion about the participating countries has been seriously damaged on the long run.

Verto · March 21, 2003, 20:49

Pro-War

Bereta_Eder · March 21, 2003, 20:51

My posts get deleted with an alarming speed!

Very well. I get the point

Anti-war. I had an american flag burning to press the point but Fox News didn't show it

Spiffor · March 21, 2003, 20:53

Anti-war, though I sure hope this will be done with minimal casualties. I voted anti-war still, because I continue to feel it is unjust and hypocrite.

GePap · March 21, 2003, 21:23

I am anti-war, but closer to the fence. Yesterday they repeated a great Frontline piece in which they took a bunch of frontlines done about iraq since 1990 and pieced them together to make one collage about the whole last 12 years, and it helped me gather my thoughts.

I am all for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, nor am I too worried that the UN sec Council did not approve it. What bother me greatly is that there was, unlike in kosovo, no substitute for the UN (in Yugoslavia you had NATO if not the UN) but more importantly, what disturbs me to no end is the underlying asumption for this war.

I do not think the Us has the ability, with all it power, to remake the world. I do not think "domino" theories, whether they are applied to communism or dmeocracy work. The admin. has undertaken a revolutionary act while justifying the act with absurd notions of a made up threat to gain support at home. This means that once the populace thinks the "threat" is gone, their support for the long-term operation afterwards will lower. The American people have no stomach for changing the world, or some Democratic Man's burden, which means that to create real, long term change, international cooperaion is key. This admin., may have admireable goals but its methods and its ideology are so dangerous that they invalidate any good they are trying to do.

Aro · March 21, 2003, 21:27

Well, with a Dr. Strangelove avatar and the UN flag... What do you expect?
Anti-war, of course.

GePap · March 21, 2003, 21:42

Hey Aro!

first time I see you in the OT..

Have you done any cartoons abouty this war yet?

Aro · March 21, 2003, 21:45

Hi, Gepap!
Yep. In the "awesome military pics..." thread I've posted some...

But some of my recent cartoons I can't post here... I'll be flamed if I do it!

Anyway, you can look here . It's all in portuguese, I'm sure you can understand many of them.

GePap · March 21, 2003, 21:57

Very nice work.

Yeah, you gotta be careful right now in the OT. I almost got into trouble with my opening salvoes of the whole pic thread...

Anyway, this is my meina hangout now in 'Poly.

Sandman · March 21, 2003, 21:58

Anti-war. The 'case for war' is based almost entirely on deception, the non-existant terrorist link and the grossly inflated effectiveness of CB weapons in particular.

DRoseDARs · March 21, 2003, 22:08

Anti-War, Pro-Assassination

Compare and contrast:
One bullet to the head or successful strike of a single missile = one dead dictator and maybe a few top pro-dictator leaders, light if any unintended casualties (soldiers and civilians alike).

or

Hundreds of missiles, God-knows-how-many bullets/artillery shells/etc., potentially hundreds or thousands of casualties (killed or maimed, either in direct combat or bystanders; soldiers and civilians alike), no real garuntee (sp? I hate spelling that word...) that the targetted dictator is dead.

I've yet to hear a good explaination as to why assasination is MORE morally repugnent than open warfare. Yes, yes: Bay of Pigs blah Castro blah blah failed blah, but when have setbacks ever really stopped the US? And why with a better alternative to open war? It's still murder, and therefore "morally repugnent" and wrong, but why MORE so than open war?

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 22:14

Quote:

I am anti-war, but closer to the fence. Yesterday they repeated a great Frontline piece in which they took a bunch of frontlines done about iraq since 1990 and pieced them together to make one collage about the whole last 12 years, and it helped me gather my thoughts.

I am all for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, nor am I too worried that the UN sec Council did not approve it. What bother me greatly is that there was, unlike in kosovo, no substitute for the UN (in Yugoslavia you had NATO if not the UN) but more importantly, what disturbs me to no end is the underlying asumption for this war.

I do not think the Us has the ability, with all it power, to remake the world. I do not think "domino" theories, whether they are applied to communism or dmeocracy work. The admin. has undertaken a revolutionary act while justifying the act with absurd notions of a made up threat to gain support at home. This means that once the populace thinks the "threat" is gone, their support for the long-term operation afterwards will lower. The American people have no stomach for changing the world, or some Democratic Man's burden, which means that to create real, long term change, international cooperaion is key. This admin., may have admireable goals but its methods and its ideology are so dangerous that they invalidate any good they are trying to do.

Damn you, GePap! Why do you have to keep making sense?

Nice post. It seems that, despite our disagreements, your view isn't all that far away from mine...

Asher · March 21, 2003, 22:16

I was neutral until the thing started.

The behavior and the lack of real arguments of the anti-war crowd has strongly pushed me in favor of the war now.

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 22:20

Quote:

The behavior and the lack of real arguments of the anti-war crowd has strongly pushed me in favor of the war now.

This has happened to me as well; I really can't stand the behavior of many of the anti-war protestors and it has soured me on the whole movement. I know there are thoughtful anti-war folks out there, but it's hard to remember them when all you see is complete morons holding up traffic with their "No Blood For Oil" signs...

Verto · March 21, 2003, 22:20

Boris Godunov · March 21, 2003, 22:23

Seems to me that changing one's view on the war based on the actions of a minority of idiots not related to it is rather...shallow?

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 22:24

I've yet to see any evidence that the idiots are in the minority on the anti-war side...

Boris Godunov · March 21, 2003, 22:25

Maybe because most anti-war folks aren't out in the streets blocking traffic?

Asher · March 21, 2003, 22:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Seems to me that changing one's view on the war based on the actions of a minority of idiots not related to it is rather...shallow?

I was neutral because I was expecting there to be a case for either side.

Case for pro-war: Saddam is a proven murderous tyrant.
Case for anti-war: War Is Bad^tm.

I gave both sides a chance to prove their merit, and only one side had something to bring to the table.

GePap · March 21, 2003, 22:27

Idiots are the majority..hence the majority on both sides.

If we wanted to create a model for dmeocracy, we should have tried Egypt. Already at peace with Israel, has made great progress in breaking the islamists, and it is the biggest state in the Arab world and the center of Arabic culture currently. Instead we go for Iraq....

Verto · March 21, 2003, 22:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Case for pro-war: Saddam is a proven murderous tyrant.
Case for anti-war: War Is Bad^tm.

Don't forget : War For Oil

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 22:28

Quote:

Maybe because most anti-war folks aren't out in the streets blocking traffic?

That doesn't mean the people at home are any smarter...

The fact that celebrities have been stuck carrying the torch for the anti-war movement makes me think that there aren't many experts that support that point of view...

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Idiots are the majority..hence the majority on both sides.

I agree with you yet again, GePap, you bastard...

Asher · March 21, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
Don't forget : War For Oil

That one's great too.
I also like the one that makes the claim that the reason for the war is Cheney has connections to the company contracted to put out oil well fires.