If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Anti-war protest
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
You could also say that if one takes a look at many of the unconditional supporters of a war regardless of proof of WMDs or UN approval, one wants to start wearing Saddam T-shirts rather than being associated with that bunch of idiots.
"The islamic terrorist believe they are going to go to heaven if they succeed in killing lots of americans / sinners....
Pres. Bush believes he is going to go to heaven if he suceeds in killing lots of Iraqi's / sinners"
Ok, that was not exactly a quote... but that was the jist of it.
Overall I think we can blame the religious fundementalisats, regardless of what religion they are following.
I agree with Whowhere. Call me selfish but my life and that of my friends and family is more important than that of a few thousand in Iraq or Iran, I feel that we are also going to have to fight this nation of fruitcakes as well.
P
Certainly know how to focus, on the main point.
For your info, my response was merely to point out the overly generalised and rather discriminatory remarks of the previous poster. I made no claim to be addressing the topic, although in a roundabout way it does insofar as choosing to ignorantly regard the average citizen of Iraq as a fruitcake (as some form of warped justification for killing them I presume) is far from legitimate reasoning.
Perhaps all these hippies, losers and other assorted individuals' protests are motivated by the opinion that you and your family are far more likely to be trampled to death by the Loch Ness Monster while it's running through the forest with Elvis riding on its back than to be killed as a result of hostile action by Iraq. Which would make all those thousands of Iraqi deaths a terrible waste, don't you think?
Heehee, how funny it will be when they prove to be right.
Whowhere, do you ever think about things of importance, or do you only think when youre bragging about how you bone your girl? Saddam Hussein is no bigger threat than a lot of countries, and, in fact, a lot safer than many nations the US currently supports, publically or otherwise. I know Id feel safer in a world with Hussein in it than a world ruled by the Chinese. But the Chinese are our 'friends' at the minute, so theyre all forgotten.
Theres no proof of WMD, and the neglect of the UN regulations is a red herring because nobodys done anything about it for 4 years, up until Bush can score political points off of bombing Muslims. Dress it up how you will, thats what it boils down to.
Hussein is scum, but in 20 years well see how clever it is to depose him, creating further instability in the region. It looks like were garnering support from the Iranians for this too, which is ironic considering Hussein only got to power cos the US wanted the Iranians to lose the war.
US foreign policy is a litany of mistakes. The Taleban, General Pinochets Chile, Saddam Hussein, the list is endless. All placed into power by the US wanting to stop those big bad bolshies, and now you can replace Communism with Muslim fundamentalism in order to see where this war will lead us. The history is all around us, the history caused the bombings at the WTC.
Leaving him in power is the safest bet, given the US' past track record. I doubt that he has WMD, but I dont think even he is daft enough to use it if he does. Hes too busy trying to have his son assassinated.
Whilst ignoring the rest of your post because we've had this argument so many times before, my interest was peaked by this comment.
The "peaceniks" are only interested in saving the lives of a certain segment of the world population and it isn't the people from "the west"...
For what I have seen, I get the general drift that they care not a jot about the possible outcomes of failing to act. Which could easily be greater loss of life...
All in all id say that whilst some peaceniks may indeed be quite hippieish and way out on the socio-political fringe, there remain many more normal individuals who view war or the application of violence to resolve international conflicts as an utter last resort.
I do concur in part with Whowhere insofar as it is rampant paranoia fed by an acquiescent and unquestioning media that has convinced so many here in the West that we are all under some sword of damacles from Saddam. While our greatest proven threat (Al Queda) has been largely placed on the back burner).
This is utter rubbish. The man is no Hitler. He has never demonstrated the aspirations nor the means to expand his empire geographically as did WWII Germany. Indeed he invaded Quwait and attempted Iran, but as previously pointed out, his attack on Iran was wholly encouraged and supported by the US at the time whilst the invasion of Quwait could hardly be considered indicative of unbridled expansionism. If he took on Turkey or Saudi, he knows he'd get his head handed to him on a plate.
All in all, Saddam is more interested in covering his own butt and being left alone to run his country into the ground as he sees fit.
I do however continue to contend that if we want to change the regime legitimately and in accordance with international law (not the law of the wild west) then we should call for the removal the UN sanctions and allow the average folk of Iraq to recover from unrelenting destitution and base survivalism till such time as they are able to mount a sufficient internal coup according to their own self determination.
This of course could have happened under Bush Sr. some 11 years ago, but although his rhetorical call for internal overthrow was duly responded to by various opposition factions, the US never did deliver the goods and actually back their efforts (re: the Southern Iraq Sunni and Northern Iraq Kurdish uprising).
So all in all, regardless of whether you consider the hippie peacenik type to be laughable, don't denigrate ALL those who seek a just solution that will not give rise to yet further (or greater) problems in the region - such as will more than likely happen if we go rushing in with all guns blazing. It is not inconsistent to care about innocent civilians be they our own or those in foreign lands currently in Bush's crosshairs.
Yes, and at least they are honest about it. Which is what I was pointing out. The "warmonger" on here has said that he puts his countrymen first...
The "peacenick" suggested that actually the protest was to save lives... the point being that the protest is about saving Iraqi lives and not lives in general.
I was being a little pedantic.
So if you believe I am intelligent then credit me with it. I certainly never suggested that the "peaceniks" wouldn't want to save their families lives...
I'm not going to get into a "Hitler" argument again becuase you certainly know my views on Saddam and the best solution. NB There is one area of Iraq with an element of political freedom and a thriving economy. Where is that? The North which is under US/UK protection.
Strange coincidence huh?
That the North is somewhat freer under US/UK protection is indeed no surprise. I never suggested Saddam was good for any part of the country. Nevertheless, neither is any eventual invasion as regards civilian security, and of course to a much greater extent the subsequent security and stability of the entire region (and thus by extension the security or our own societies).
The fact that the "rough and ready" crew wish to just storm the place - with nary a thought for the potentially worse situation left in the wake of said invasion - is far more frightening for many of us who oppose war as being the "fashionable" option to achieve Saddam's removal than is Saddam's current condition of isolation.
Right now he, is more of a threat to my way of life than my countrymen.
There is no proof of WMD's that has been made avaiable to the general public, however there is no proof that he DOESN'T have them either.
And at the moment the generals and the intelligence staff all believe that the liklihood of him having weapons, and using them is greater than not using them.
Maybe he doesn't want to expand his empire, but he does want to destroy the USA and the UK, he has made it clear every chance he has got, and he has brainwashed his people into thinking the same way.
And yes, I agree that US foreign policy has got us into this mess, and they have dragged the UK into it as well. Now we're in it, we can't simply walk away and ignore the problem to it fades away. Saddam has made it clear he wants revenge on the UK for our involvement in helping to ruin his country.
And I very much doubt that he would confine his attacks to military bases. For all we know he has sent a few handfuls of men with biological weapons on their way here, ready to start wandring around a few major cities, causing a few hundred thousand fatalities. to me, the prospect of that happening is unacceptable, and right now we have more proof that he HAS the ability and will to destroy us than the opposite.
And if stopping the threat to me, my family, my friends and the other 60 million people in Britain means killing a thousand people then so be it.
All in all I think many people are buying into a media fed propaganda campaign of paranoia in order to justify and further the desires of a trigger happy Bush and acquiescent Blair.
I frankly do not see Saddam, despite his onerous behaviour, being stupid enough - in the face of impending inspections which he insists will turn up nothing - to launch any direct attacks against either the UK or US. He knows full well that if he did, our intelligence agencies would be rather swift in tracing it back to Iraq and thus signalling the complete end to his regime and more than likely his life.
Remember, what Saddam wants more than anything else is to be left alone to rule his land as he sees fit (read: like a despot).
Our best chance is to do what Bush Sr. failed to do in 91 and actually follow through with support for internal insurgencies.
Beyond that, let us not forget that buying into the paranoia we are being fed is only serving to frighten our own populations into supporting without question the agendas of our own leaders. So regardless of the means, one could argue that THEY are employing terrorist methods (albeit emotional or psychological terrorism) to further their own political longevity.
Lets try to see who is actually benefitting from all this before we go sending hundreds of thousands of our young men and women off to fight and perhaps die for little more than a corrupt and suspect Bush/Blair agenda. Especially since there are numerous possible actions that could be used to redress the situation without engaging Iraq militarily.
Russia has nuclear weapons targeted on us right now, it only takes a handful of officials to launch an attack and wipe out Britain.....
Surely we must attack them now........
Or so you claim... interesting that it does not match his actions...
Come off it Greenhat, you like the republican fear mongers you obviously support are good at inflating this tin pot dictator into a modern Ghengis Khan. Its quite laughable really.
Although i suppose whatever convinces the public to keep quiet while we blow our budget deficit well into the red to fill the coffers of the military industrial complex is good your eyes.
Utter nonsense.
Oooh watch out, Castro is gonna invade Florida!!!
and what makes you so sure that he needs such a trigger...?
Shouldn't that have "inspired" him to keep the terms of the cease-fire?
But it didn't. Not exactly the actions of someone who wants to be left alone, is it?
Wanting to be left alone and not doing that which will ensure he is simply makes him a self-absorbed despot nothing more really.
Given his need for doubles and the fact that he never sleeps anywhere for more than one night at a time is a greater indication of extreme paranoia and withdrawal than it indicates an imperialist exapansionist.
Besides, it's pretty clear that his military wouldnt go to any great lengths any longer to carry off such expansionism outside of Iraq's borders even if they had the means to do so. He has alienated most soldiers by killing off numerous of their best officers (not to mention, as you yourself have pointed out Greenhat) the fact that by doing so his army lacks any significant tactical advantage over many of the surrounding nations' armed forces.
N.B. you didnt quite answer my question above though did you Greenhat?
I think he should be deposed as leader there because of the way he treats his people, but blowing them all up is hardly conducive to saving the Iraqis now, is it? Saddam wouldnt attack the US or the UK because he has neither the means nor the will to- look at the way now things are getting warm hes suddenly emptied his prisons of political prisoners once the US get arsey about his human rights record.
The guy is concerned with nothing more than bleeding Iraq dry. Hes hardly Hitler, hes more like a traffic warden. He cant even defeat Iran, let alone the USA or the UK.
Its not that Im pro-Hussein, I just think that theres better ways of dealing with him than blowing Baghdad up. Especially seeing as how he wont be there when we bomb. All attacking Iraq in the current climate will do is justify to more Muslims that what Al-Qaeda says is true- that the US is out to get them. Of course its not true, but Bush and Blair are making it incredibly easy to say so with their actions, and the fact its always Muslim targets which are got. Ireland, strangely, isnt bombed with the justification of killing Gerry Adams, now, is it? And the IRA are more of a threat than Hussein will EVER be.
Whereas when he was occupying Kuwait he faced larger forces and promptly withdrew, didn't he?
and following the cessation he resisted the urge to us his force to put down a rebellion...
So, but then we're not just dealing with theory are we. Some of us are dealing with history, and his track record.
I'm sure he does want to be left alone. That way there are no checks on what he does...
and how does he deal with this percieved threat. Violence. He ruthlessly puts down rebellions, he systematically shot his opponents, and even people who don't oppose him, just as an example...
And yes, I know that what we are propsing is a violent act, but after 10 years of non-complaince, I suspect that there is little other option.
Okay, so now give those self same armed forces the ultimate weapon, and they don't sound so helpless do they. Whilst they may not match Israel, they would certainly be able to out threaten evey other country in th region. But not to worry, its not like he has ever acted on such a threat is it. As Iran and Kuwait would confirm...
Yes, in the way she ruthlessly invaded the Falklands.
Oh, hang on, that was the Argentinians though, wasn't it?
There is no proof which has been made public. An important difference, and there is proof that he will use them. He already has...and on more than one occasion.
Exactly MoK, you only further my argument. Hardly the act of a man others here have equated with Hitler. If he had an driving urge for conquering the region, and even anything resembling the means to do it, he wouldn’t have withdrawn now would he? Did he use WMDs on the coalition forces during the Kuwait withdrawal? No. Hmmmm Yet you insist he is not only ready to use them in Iraq (if he even has them) but that he would send them off to be used in the US or UK??? Come on pal, a little consistency please.
Once again, precisely! I am not raising theory, I am pointing out that his past actions do not show him as the expansionist imperialist he is being labeled as by some. Of the invasions he did order, only one (aka Quwait) was committed without any support and encouragement from those who now want to storm in to get him. So his track record falls short of the global threat he is being painted as to serve certain Western political agendas (and undoubtedly re-election tactics).
I’m sure you must realize that he is and has been under constant monitoring from numerous intelligence agencies and other entities without the need for full-scale invasion. I don’t see that situation changing unless we make matters worse for the entire region by going ahead with a sequel war.
Once again, the fact that he is despotic and heinous toward his own people and indeed his own inner circle is not in question. This is simply further confirmation that he is in no position to be carrying out threats abroad as some politicians wish the public to believe. Its largely the view of western analysts that Saddam lives in a world of lies and half truths told to him by his advisors. It is unlikely that he has any real support from the masses either since fear does not inspire true loyalty.
Fine if you presuppose that the Iraqi military shares Saddam’s supposed wish to conquer the entire region. Frankly use of WMDs would bring down more than the US and UK on his head, and if he doesn’t realize this (which I suspect he does) then certainly his armed forces do. Once again the actual threat is far less than what people are being led to believe for political reasons.
This is a circular argument, which falls flat I’m afraid. It fell flat for Bush and Blair, since if such evidence existed and were conclusive then other world leaders who currently oppose invasion as a top option would surely have been shown it (even if the public wasn’t) and would have fallen in line without such resistance. In the end referring to what may be the case without conclusive proof is like trying to prove the existence or non-existence of God.
I'm surprised you say that MoK. Are you implying, like many would like us to believe, that the US, UK or other governments have proof of WMD ownership by Saddam but we the commoners cannot be told because it would compromise our security or send us into a panic? That's the very old and very stupid argument warmongers usually put forward. "Trust us, this man is evil but you're better off not knowing why. Let us just bomb his country back to the Stone Age and do not question our actions. You can be assured is the right thing to do."
It doesn't quite work that way I'm afraid.
1. He didn't withdraw. Exactly like Hitler on the Eastern Front.
2. He did order the use of WMDs against coalition forces.
Oops...didn't get that bit, did you?
And let's not forget the attacks on Israel...oh, yes..the actions of a man who wants to be left alone... :rolleyes:
You keep your fantasies intact, Clandestine. Other people will risk their lives for your right to do so.
No. The way it works is that intelligence information comes from sources. Publicizing data compromises those sources, making them worthless as well as probably dead. Intelligence sources are things you protect and keep very close held in an attempt to keep them effective and alive. That is how it works.