Protester Arrested

You raise a good point in how many of the protestors are the same ones who protested for other causes. It all adds to the rent a mob stigma some of these protests have. Hell, they'd probably start protesting the land rights for gay whales sometime soon. Peg Putt, who is a member of the Greens (enviromental) party of Australia, gives her party a bad name because they protest anything that the other parties do. One example was an American warship coming in and her saying they do not want it. So the others say they don't want it, only for her to turn around and say they do want it now.
 
Originally posted by Pedro
No, it would never happen in the UK, I'd underline the differences between the two countries at present, however I think despite however many reasons there are to goto war we know bush is doing it for oil and blair is doing it to stay on his good side.
Click to expand...
First of all, this is not George Bush and Tony Blair's war. Don't try to belittle what is done by personalizing it.

Secondly, Bush is not advocating war because of oil. Less than 26% of the United States' oil comes from the Middle-East, and only a very small fraction of that comes from Iraq. Iraq could cease to exist tomorrow, and take all its oil with it, and it would do nothing. Certain countries are, however, opposing war based on oil. The French, for instance have many lucrative oil contracts with Iraq which they've not always acquired through the most kosher means, and which they stand to lose if their buddy Saddam is removed from power.

Finally, Tony Blair is not doing what he does because he wants to stay on Bush's good side. It's because he, like George Bush, has some fucking nuts, and knows the right thing to do, and the whole world should be giving him a lot more credit than he recieves.

It's fun to pretend to be intellectual, and say really neato things like, "This war is just about oil," and so-forth, but it's all just posing.
 
If we were going to war for oil, we wouldn't have even gone this far. Look at oil prices. Going to war over oil is hurting the economy now way more than it would ever help if we somehow did benefit from gaining meager oil supplies.

I prefer the idea that we are going there because there is a madman, and history has shown madmen to be very destructive leaders on the global playing field. The problem is going to be the post-war mess. The only real thing one can hope for is that this is relatively bloodless and clean.
 
Originally posted by Frosty
First of all, this is not George Bush and Tony Blair's war.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. After hearing the news last night it seems that most other countries would rather avoid the whole war but won't object if that leaves them on the US's good side. Apparently China who would rather not have the war and has the power of veto has decided that they will abstain from voting no matter what lest they piss off the US - because of trade and all. And it seems that Mexico is being bullied by the US into voting for the resolution.

The only real opposition is France who are in deep shit if things don't go their way. Starting to look like the US's war to me. And while France is most probably opposed because of whatever I'm be damned if the US is doing it because its "the right thing to do".
 
Originally posted by steampunk
After hearing the news last night it seems that most other countries would rather avoid the whole war but won't object if that leaves them on the US's good side.
Click to expand...

of course most other countries would rather avoid the war. the US and UK would rather avoid the war. the difference btwn most other countries and the US/UK is that the US/UK know when to say 'enough is enough', while most other countries are doing the 'lets give iraq 1 more chance, and after they fuck up that chance, lets give them another, and after that, another'

Apparently China who would rather not have the war and has the power of veto has decided that they will abstain from voting no matter what lest they piss off the US - because of trade and all. And it seems that Mexico is being bullied by the US into voting for the resolution.
Click to expand...

that's called politics

The only real opposition is France who are in deep shit if things don't go their way. Starting to look like the US's war to me. And while France is most probably opposed because of whatever I'm be damned if the US is doing it because its "the right thing to do".
Click to expand...

so, cause france is fucked if we go to war, it's the US's war? forgive me if i don't understand the logic of that statement. well then, what's the 'real' reason the US is going to war?
 
Originally posted by LeHah
Free speech doesn't exist in places like Disneyworld or schools simply because they have to maintain order and a "tolerance" of all types. You surrender your privilege of Free Speech the moment you walk through those doors. Tolerance through intolerance.
Click to expand...

Well, some degree of free speech exists on Disneyworld, or the school. Rights are not absolute, they vary in intensity, depending on the situation.

For example, if a commercial establishment distributes one of those polls about what do you think of their service, they can’t throw you out if you choose “bad” for all questions. :)
 
Originally posted by Delance
Well, some degree of free speech exists on Disneyworld, or the school. Rights are not absolute, they vary in intensity, depending on the situation.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. You are free to say anything you want. And then you are free to leave or be thrown out :p.
 
Originally posted by Aries
so, cause france is fucked if we go to war, it's the US's war? forgive me if i don't understand the logic of that statement. well then, what's the 'real' reason the US is going to war?
Click to expand...

No, when every other country wants to avoid a war but are willing to let the US go ahead just to not piss them off and the US starts bullying countries to vote in their favor, then it starts to look like its the US's war.

And sorry, I'm not psychic. I don't know all the reason why Bush wants to go to war. Do you really believe its as simple as the US wanting to do the right thing? Bullshit, they obviously will have much more to gain than feeling good about themselves. I for one would like to know precisely what, before I support something that could potentially fuck things up more than they already are.
 
Originally posted by steampunk
No, when every other country wants to avoid a war but are willing to let the US go ahead just to not piss them off and the US starts bullying countries to vote in their favor, then it starts to look like its the US's war.
Click to expand...

Interesting point of view.

Countries that are against the US are 100% in good faith, selfless defenders of freedom and good. They have no economic interest, and they are not anti-american, they are just good, heroes of the human race.

Countries that support the US are either malevolent villains, corrupt mercenaries or feeble-spirited being bullied in to war.

That's incorrect. Countries like England, Portugal, Spain and Italy are on this one.

It's interesting, because against the war there're countries like France, Germany, Russia, China and Brazil. It includes my own!
 
Originally posted by Delance
Countries that are against the US are 100% in good faith, selfless defenders of freedom and good. They have no economic interest, and they are not anti-american, they are just good, heroes of the human race.

Countries that support the US are either malevolent villains, corrupt mercenaries or feeble-spirited being bullied in to war.
Click to expand...

I never said the countries in opposition are all nice or that the countries for it are evil. Everybody is looking out for themselves. All I suggested is that things are looking as though the war will be a mostly US thing. Seems as though no one wants it but most are willing to go with the flow.

China I don't think is in support of the US, but would like to be on its good side but out of the way. As i said, apparently they don't want it, but since they want to be on good terms with the US, they will abstain from voting and not use their power of veto even if that could stop a conflict.
 
Funny story (I haven't posted in a while) but this incident with the mall occured at MY mall! Crossgates Mall in Guilderland NY, I work in a crappy store there. I've been reading into it some more, and the guy bought the shirt in that very mall! The disgusting part: the guys who are the mall cops seem like the type to be pro-war and anti-freedom of speech. Also another funny part of the story: Downs (the man who was arrested) is a judicial affairs attorney, who's job is to fire judges who they feel aren't doing their jobs. Up to a year jail sentence? I think not. It's not a violation of freedom of speech, he didn't say anything. It's a violation of clothing. So I say: STOP SELLING IT THEN!
 
Originally posted by steampunk
China I don't think is in support of the US, but would like to be on its good side but out of the way. As i said, apparently they don't want it, but since they want to be on good terms with the US, they will abstain from voting and not use their power of veto even if that could stop a conflict.
Click to expand...

China can't play that game because they invaded and are occupying Tibet, and they want to invade the "rebel province" of Taiwan.
 
Originally posted by steampunk
I don't know about that. After hearing the news last night it seems that most other countries would rather avoid the whole war but won't object if that leaves them on the US's good side.
Click to expand...
A great number of nations have cast in their support for our campaign. More than just the UK.
I'm be damned if the US is doing it because its "the right thing to do".
Click to expand...
You're too cynical, lighten up. The current administration is exactly the type to undertake such a task because it's the right thing to do, so I wouldn't discount that possibility out of hand. However, even if the ultimate motivation for going to war with Iraq is not for purely altruistic reasons, that doesn't diminish the fact that it still is the right thing to do.
No, when every other country wants to avoid a war but are willing to let the US go ahead just to not piss them off and the US starts bullying countries to vote in their favor, then it starts to look like its the US's war.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's not what's occuring, and I can't imagine where you got that idea.
Do you really believe its as simple as the US wanting to do the right thing? Bullshit, they obviously will have much more to gain than feeling good about themselves. I for one would like to know precisely what, before I support something that could potentially fuck things up more than they already are.
Click to expand...
How could anything get fucked up? Victory is a certainty. What they and you stand to gain from said victory, in addition to feeling good about having done a noble deed for the people of Iraq, is safety from petty dictators' agression, and enhanced stability in an important region of the world. These motives are not sinister, they define the just cause.
 
Originally posted by Frosty
The current administration is exactly the type to undertake such a taks because it's the right thing to do, so I wouldn't discount that possibility out of hand.
Click to expand...

If Bush does a good enough job, we might even elect him.
 
Originally posted by Frosty
You're too cynical, lighten up. The current administration is exactly the type to undertake such a task because it's the right thing to do, so I wouldn't discount that possibility out of hand. However, even if the ultimate motivation for going to war with Iraq is not for purely altruistic reasons, that doesn't diminish the fact that it still is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

When it comes to politicians I am always too cynical. I'm all for removing Saddam. But I'd like to know what the affects of having a war would be. I can't see the full picture and no one is really explaining it to me.
 
Originally posted by steampunk
When it comes to politicians I am always too cynical. I'm all for removing Saddam. But I'd like to know what the affects of having a war would be. I can't see the full picture and no one is really explaining it to me.
Click to expand...

And you won't until after it's all over. You can't know the full effects of a war, because war is inherently massively unpredictable. You're not intended to see the full picture, and nobody is going to spoil their hand by giving away any unnecessary information. All people have done for the last four months is try to explain the war to you. You've got these anti-war people talking about blood for oil, and you've got the government talking about removing unpredictable regimes from an unstable part of the world. You can't claim nobody is explaining it to you. You've got all the information you're supposed to have.
 
If I was Blair, I'd be hoping for an encounter with Thrakhath.

Anyway, I think it might be prudent to mention the disinformation some would be spreading to make people believe in their cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top