The W
Views: 100064698
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 2338
The W - Current Events & Politics - We need more protesters like this (Page 3)
This thread has 69 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next(2296 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (63 total)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2832 days
Last activity: 2675 days
AIM:  
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
Old thread, I know, but here are some photos from the protests this weekend.

Peep this, yo.

The link is to someone's blog, so it might cease functioning at some point... I dunno.

Edit: And here, check out the www.workers.org, and note the cover photo.

(edited by PalpatineW on 16.2.03 2300)

Damn your eyes!
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1318 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#42 Posted on
I just love those signs- they just prove my point. Either the people are A- out there for attention and something to do, and are not really serious, or are B - Anti- conservatives. I mean really, lets see some photos from protests of Clinton's attacks on Bosnia or Iraq during his term! How many of them show Clinton with an empty head? How many say "Down with Clinton?"
The fact is these people are not against war in Iraq. They are against a Conservative American leading a war in Iraq. And that is disgusting. It has nothing to do with what is right, it is all about WHO is right. Maybe why Democracy can't work in the long run...



Not that restraint when posting in a "public" forum isn't a good thing...

rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 584 days
Last activity: 199 days
AIM:  
#43 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I just love those signs- they just prove my point. Either the people are A- out there for attention and something to do, and are not really serious, or are B - Anti- conservatives. I mean really, lets see some photos from protests of Clinton's attacks on Bosnia or Iraq during his term! How many of them show Clinton with an empty head? How many say "Down with Clinton?"
    The fact is these people are not against war in Iraq. They are against a Conservative American leading a war in Iraq. And that is disgusting. It has nothing to do with what is right, it is all about WHO is right. Maybe why Democracy can't work in the long run...




Or maybe they are C -anti war. Jesus man, why do you take every snip at Bush so personally? Are you saying that nobody protested against Clinton? People are allowed to disagree with what the President is doing. You agree with what hes doing, some dont. They are allowed to protest, however stupid you may think they are. Democracy wont work you say? Should Bush be like Saddam Hussein and have the FBI and Army shoot all who oppose him?
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 47 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#44 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Either the people are A- out there for attention and something to do, and are not really serious, or are B - Anti- conservatives. I mean really, lets see some photos from protests of Clinton's attacks on Bosnia or Iraq during his term! How many of them show Clinton with an empty head? How many say "Down with Clinton?"
    The fact is these people are not against war in Iraq. They are against a Conservative American leading a war in Iraq. And that is disgusting.



Or maybe they just dont think that there is a compelling enough case to start a war which will inevitably result in the death of many thousands of innocent people. Why does every political debate have to descend into mindless generalisations and insults?

Personally I'm willing to at least give the inspections a chance in the short term. Hans Blix stated that they had found no evidence that Iraq had prior knowledge of when inspections would occur, which rather contradicted what Colin Powell told us a few days ago. That being the case should we not see if we can find more compelling evidence for the existence of weapons of mass destrustion before we start bombing?





"You dont appreciate a lot of stuff in school until you get older. Little things like being spanked every day by a middle aged woman: stuff you'd pay good money for these days."


One time undisputed Wiener of the day 2.11.02
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1318 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#45 Posted on
No, the point is that Iraq HAD these weapons, and there is undeniable proof that they were developing and producing more.
1441 stated that Iraq was to completely disarm, and prove that they had done so.
The inspectors are not there to find the weapons. They are there to facilitate Iraq's compliance with 1441. In other words, Iraq is supposed to take the inspectors by the hand and say, "Here is where we stored our V-X gas. Here is the documentation that it was destroyed. Please not the amount destroyed and the disposition of the remains. Now here is where the wresckage of our 18 mobile biological weapons labs is. Here is the documentation outlining their destruction. Here-"
OK, I hear the argument "We have to give the inspectors MORE TIME!!!" so often, but I have to ask, exactly WHAT is that going to accomplish? First off, if they are looking on their own, they are never going to find it. Iraq is the size of a large state, and the evidence they are looking for could be hid ANYWHERE. It could take a decade to find the evidence needed. So we give the inspectors more time. Then what? We give them more? No.. we gave SADAAM a deadline, and he is not complying. Period. The amount of time the inspectors have had is irrelavant.
I am sorry, Iraq has had 12 years. That is more than enough time. And yes, I am all for peace (though again, the whole "thousands of innocents will die! Argument flaberghasts me... where are you getting this figure?). But not peace at all costs. We are right to demand that Sadaam either steps down or disarms. He has proven to be agressive when it comes to his neighbors, and genocidal when it comes to his own people. We have tried inspections, sanctions, pleading- nothing has worked. It is time for a threat- disarm, go into exile, or be invaded. If he does not comply, we pull the trigger. It is that simple.
The prospect for peace is in SADAAM'S court now. All he has to do is give the inspectors EVERYTHING. Openly, freely, and immediatly. It really is as simple as that. Then we can have peace.
As far as the protesters go, I for one don't like the idea of going to war on a whim either. But there IS a case for war. Bush and Powell have made it. But they are not protesting the war, they are using the potential for war as an excuse to protest Republicans. And I have every right to find that sick.
If they want to protest the war, they can do so on the facts. How about protesting Saddaam, for his lack of cooperation? He is the one the world has ORDERED to lay down his weapons, he is the one refusing to do so, and we are the bad guys for wanting to punish him?
Nothing like living in a world with no consequences.



Not that restraint when posting in a "public" forum isn't a good thing...

calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 563 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#46 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Ok let say we give the inspections a chance and they find WOMD. Let ignore the fact that the inspectors are not even in Iraq to look for them. What happens next? I donít think Iraq is just going to hand them over. This is the where the anti-war people have no case. Is it now ok to start a war with Iraq and kill thousands of innocent when it was not ok day before? Should we try diplomatic means even if they have not work for the last 12 years? Or should (and this I think will be the anti-war folk response) we just say "Hey the United States has all these weapons why should they not let other countries have them" and just ignore all the bad things this dictator has done over the last 20 years?

(edited by calvinh0560 on 17.2.03 1713)
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 47 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#47 Posted on

    Originally posted by calvinh0560
    Ok let say we give the inspections a chance and they find WOMD. Let ignore the fact that the inspectors are not even in Iraq to look for them. What happens next? I donít think Iraq is just going to hand them over.


Well thats when we bomb them. There is a difference between being 'anti-war' and using war as a last resort. At present the US and the UK, your ever willing bitch, dont appear to want compliance from Iraq. They want Saddam gone, end of.

The reports from Hans Blix have been increasingly positive regarding cooperation from Iraq, and yet neither of us have wavered an inch. Sure the US gave Iraq a deadline, but they knew it was one that there was not a chance of Iraq ever meeting.

And the killing of innocents does not become 'right' overnight because we have found chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction. It becomes unavoidable.





"You dont appreciate a lot of stuff in school until you get older. Little things like being spanked every day by a middle aged woman: stuff you'd pay good money for these days."


One time undisputed Wiener of the day 2.11.02
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1318 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#48 Posted on
I think war is unavoidable now.

I mean seriously, think about it- exactly how long does it take for Iraq to comply? They have had 12 years so far to do it.

All Iraq has to do is say OK! And start giving the inspectors what they want. Compliance takes a matter of hours, not months. If Saddaam were to announce that he is indeed in violation, and exposed the weapons, and let the UN take over in dismantling the programs, I would be a lot less likely to support war than now, when he admits nothing, and does not even bother to show evidence that he is in compliance. The burden of proof, after all, is on HIM.

That is the jist of it. If Saddaam comes clean, and cooperates fully, there is no war, no matter what he has. this can be accomplished in less than a day. One or two token concessions is NOT compliance. And it is clear he has no intention of complying at all.

NOW is the time for military action. We have exhausted all other possibilities. It is time for the world to step up and say - "Comply or your government will be dismantled by force." And if he STILL does not comply, follow through with the threat. If the threat of utter annihilation is not enough to make him cave, nothing else will. And I don't see how it is the rest of the world's job to scour every square inch of his country looking for weapons he was ordered to get rid of anyway.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 17.2.03 1554)


Not that restraint when posting in a "public" forum isn't a good thing...

Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 109 days
Last activity: 4 days
#49 Posted on
There are also other people who, although they do support intervention in Iraq, want to see a long-term plan in place that would outline the interim government, the ultimate form of government in Iraq and the transition from the interim arrangement to the final form the new government will have. And, most importantly of all, an exit strategy that explains how we will taper off our support and under what conditions this will happen. The goal should be to establish a free and democratic Iraq. As part of fulfilling that, we should know how this process will work, up to and including the exit of foreign troops and advisors from Iraq. This should be done and explained before one shot is fired.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#50 Posted on
    Originally posted by Corajudo
    There are also other people who, although they do support intervention in Iraq, want to see a long-term plan in place that would outline the interim government, the ultimate form of government in Iraq and the transition from the interim arrangement to the final form the new government will have. And, most importantly of all, an exit strategy that explains how we will taper off our support and under what conditions this will happen. The goal should be to establish a free and democratic Iraq. As part of fulfilling that, we should know how this process will work, up to and including the exit of foreign troops and advisors from Iraq. This should be done and explained before one shot is fired.


Well, actually...

"The US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials.

The Kurds say the decision resulted from pressure from US allies in the Middle East who fear a war will lead to radical political change in the region.

The Kurdish leaders are enraged by an American plan to occupy Iraq but largely retain the government in Baghdad. The only changes would be the replacement of President Saddam and his lieutenants with senior US military officers."


(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 18.2.03 1320)


"Contrary to popular belief, there are no good wars, with the following exceptions: the American Revolution, World War II and the 'Star Wars' trilogy."
-Bart Simpson
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1318 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#51 Posted on
Eh- and they forgot about the REST of the steps, where we give control of Iraq back to the people.
Seriously... This is the UNITED STATES. Like we are seriously looking to make Iraq state #51....
It will be the same thing as Afghanistan. They have laid out the post-war plans for Iraq's government in great detail. Anyone, especially an American, who thinks we are going to be there for conquest is SERIOUSLY delluded. And quite unreasonable.



Not that restraint when posting in a "public" forum isn't a good thing...

MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#52 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.73
They have laid out the post-war plans for Iraq's government in great detail.

Great. Where's the plan?

Anyone, especially an American, who thinks we are going to be there for conquest is SERIOUSLY delluded. And quite unreasonable.

Well, there is not a doubt in my mind that Jr. is both seriously deluded and unreasonable.

The shame of this whole thing is that it could have been done right. I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that Saddam Hussein needs to go, and by force if necessary. But the way Jr. is going about this (and the rest of his foreign policy) is idiotic.

Jr. is sending this message to the world: "the problems of the International Community are not the problems of the United States. The welfare and goals of the United States - no matter how big or small - always take precidence over the welfare and goals of the rest of the world."

Now that's all fine and good if that's your policy, but you then can't expect - as Jr. seems to - for other countries to have the policy that the problems of the United States are the problems of the International Community, or that the welfare and goals of the United States - no matter how big or small - take precidence over welfare and goals of their country. And backing a war is very bad politics for most other countries.

Now an International Coalition against Iraq might very well be what we need right now. But I sure don't blame other countries for not backing us on this if it costs them something, because lately we haven't been willing to back any other country on anything if it costs us a cent.

Maybe France doesn't want this war because it will cost them economically. Can you blame them when we won't sign an environmental treaty because it will cost us economically? Or when we raise tariffs because it will help us economically?

Maybe leaders should back us, even though it's unpopular at home. But when was the last time Jr. (or Clinton, or Daddy, or Reagan, really) backed a foreign policy measure that was unpopular at home?

If we want to go this alone, fine. But if we want international support - which we could have had - we need to give other countries international support also. If we want other countries to line up behind us, we need to let them be part of the decision making process. If we want the world to stand up for us, we need to stand up for the world.

This used to be what we were about. We used to stand up for the free world. During the Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower (who I give a ton of credit to on this front, despite not helping Israel at all) administrations we were (cue dramatic music) a beacon of hope, freedom, and liberation. Sometime after that stuff started to go wrong. But even as late 2001 we were still on this track. This is after the U.S. had been the sole superpower for ten years, so spare me the "other countries are just playa-hating" arguments. And Jr. threw it all away to look tough.

Remember when the Berlin wall fell? How it seemed like the whole world loved America? How you felt like the world was going to be OK? In the early 90s we had finally quit supporting fascist regimes in Latin America. We were going to rebuild Communist Europe. The Middle-East situation finally looked like it would be solved. The whole world had gotten behind us in the Gulf War.

And somehow it all went to shit.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 47 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#53 Posted on
I'd pretty much echo the views of Moe I think, though with a little less disliking for Dubya.

My point, and the point of many thousands of those protesting, is that America and Britain should not go to war without the backing of the UN. We're gonna go in saying its because Iraq has broken a UN ruling, and yet the UN wont give us their backing?

I understand that France and Germany may have motives behind their standpoint other than those they have stated. Schroeder got back in on an anti war ticket and would lose a hell of a lot of support if he changed his views so soon after getting into power.

But really, what sort of a precedent does it set if we decide to go to war without the backing of the UN? Is it OK for us to do it cos we're the goodies? What if Iran or Syria decide that Israel (who has nuclear capabilities) is a threat to their national security? Is it all right for them to start a war without the backing of the UN?

Those for the war tell us that Iraq has had 12 years to comply. Well why did it suddenly become of such upmost importance to do something now? Why not 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Has September 11th shown us Iraq poses a greater threat than in the past? Right now there little if any evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden, and in fact most informed observers will tell you that Saddam hates Islamic fundamentalists.

I have nothing against either a war on Iraq, or the removal of Saddam from power. But I do not believe that this should be done in a vigilante fashion that would simply create greater instability in the International community







"You dont appreciate a lot of stuff in school until you get older. Little things like being spanked every day by a middle aged woman: stuff you'd pay good money for these days."


One time undisputed Wiener of the day 2.11.02
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 109 days
Last activity: 4 days
#54 Posted on
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Eh- and they forgot about the REST of the steps, where we give control of Iraq back to the people.
    Seriously... This is the UNITED STATES. Like we are seriously looking to make Iraq state #51....
    It will be the same thing as Afghanistan. They have laid out the post-war plans for Iraq's government in great detail. Anyone, especially an American, who thinks we are going to be there for conquest is SERIOUSLY delluded. And quite unreasonable.



I do not think that Bush wants Iraq as the 51st state or that the U.S. is looking to add territory. However, I have not seen this long-term plan. And, I'm not convinced that Bush has a long-term plan. When I talk about exit strategy, I mean I want a plan that lays everything out from what happens when Hussein is deposed and a power vacuum is created to the type of lasting government which will be established in Iraq. Part of this includes the exit strategy and the transition between these points.

Again, the ultimate goal should be freedom and democracy for Iraq's people. This won't be easy and it will take a lot of time and money to accomplish. Most importantly of all, it will take a lot of planning and foresight. My concern is that we remove Hussein and he is ultimately replaced by the same type of ruler. I don't see that as a good long-term solution. At the same time, that will be the easy way out, which is why I am so concerned.

EDIT: I should point out that I don't care about UN approval. To me, the UN is anachronistic, anti-Semitic and irrelevant. If anything, UN opposition is often a guide to good policymaking. If they are in favor of something, it makes me wonder what is wrong with it.

(edited by Corajudo on 18.2.03 1349)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1318 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#55 Posted on
So- lemme get this straight-

The rest of the world hates America Because of George W Bush.

You know- I hate doing this, because it does not help any argument, but sometimes you just get so fed up that there is no other alternative.

Your liberal partisanship digusts me.

Seriously- 90% of the opposition to this war has nothing to do with the war itself- it has to do with making a popular Republican president look bad. We have not even gone to war yet, and you are already accusing Bush of conquering Iraq, and killing all of the Iraqi civilians! It is just so much hype and spin that even I am getting dizzy.

Take a look at the people who are on what side of things here- you have your hard-core conservatives, who support Bush no matter what. They are not much help in this argument.

You have your Liberal Freaks who gladly supported any military action that a Democratic Predident lead, but will ignore any rational argument in this case. And, jump up and down and scream like little girls because this is THEIR CHANCE to make Bush look bad.

And then there is the rest of us who remained skepticle about the prospect of war, but remained open-minded enough to see that when the evidence (and actions of our dear Iraqi President) DID support military action, we climbed on board. Most reasonable people see that this is the last avenue available to us. Most people see that there IS a link between Iraq and Al Quaida, that this IS part of the larger war on terror, and that we don't want a damned V-X bomb blowing up in our backyard because we were too "worried" about creating some grand coilition.

Because you know, the rest of the world is against us on this.

Oh yeah, only if you consider 5 nations- a loud bumbling one, a loud wishy-washy one, two vitrually silent ones, and an insignifigant one the rest of the world. Yup, five countries are against us. OH! Six! IRAQ is against us too. Well damned, can't spit in the face of a whole SIX other countries now, can we? Cuz you know there are only like 7 or 8 countires in the whole world...

The way I see it, this argument is pointless. In a few weeks time (unless a MIRACLE happens and Saddaam, you know, gives in and does what is required of him), we will be going in there, and we will oust him. And the liberal wacko loudmouths will be all up-in-arms about how evil we are. And then everything will go smoothly (as smooth as war can be), we will slowly start to pull out of Iraq, leaving a stable, democratic government behind, the mission being a total success.

Then in 2004 every since one of the Democratic Canditates for president will be fighting each other for the chance to claim they supported the War in Iraq too. And then Clinton will come out of the woodwork saying that HE counseled Bush to go ahead with the war.

To think this party produced such men as JFK. Ah, how the mighty have fallen.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 18.2.03 1158)


Not that restraint when posting in a "public" forum isn't a good thing...

The Masked Hungarian
Pickled pork








Since: 23.1.02
From: Staten Island NY USA

Since last post: 3392 days
Last activity: 3391 days
AIM:  
#56 Posted on
Corajudo: "EDIT: I should point out that I don't care about UN approval. To me, the UN is anachronistic, anti-Semitic and irrelevant. If anything, UN opposition is often a guide to good policymaking. If they are in favor of something, it makes me wonder what is wrong with it."

For everyone who is screaming about the United States bypassing the UN I point to that statement. Punt the UN out of New York and let them establish a new base in Syria. It's 1939 all over again...ask Neville and the League of Nations how things worked out for them
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 9 days
#57 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    So- lemme get this straight-

    The rest of the world hates America Because of George W Bush.

    You know- I hate doing this, because it does not help any argument, but sometimes you just get so fed up that there is no other alternative.

    Your liberal partisanship digusts me.

    Seriously- 90% of the opposition to this war has nothing to do with the war itself- it has to do with making a popular Republican president look bad. We have not even gone to war yet, and you are already accusing Bush of conquering Iraq, and killing all of the Iraqi civilians! It is just so much hype and spin that even I am getting dizzy.

    Take a look at the people who are on what side of things here- you have your hard-core conservatives, who support Bush no matter what. They are not much help in this argument.

    You have your Liberal Freaks who gladly supported any military action that a Democratic Predident lead, but will ignore any rational argument in this case. And, jump up and down and scream like little girls because this is THEIR CHANCE to make Bush look bad.

    And then there is the rest of us who remained skepticle about the prospect of war, but remained open-minded enough to see that when the evidence (and actions of our dear Iraqi President) DID support military action, we climbed on board. Most reasonable people see that this is the last avenue available to us. Most people see that there IS a link between Iraq and Al Quaida, that this IS part of the larger war on terror, and that we don't want a damned V-X bomb blowing up in our backyard because we were too "worried" about creating some grand coilition.

    Because you know, the rest of the world is against us on this.

    Oh yeah, only if you consider 5 nations- a loud bumbling one, a loud wishy-washy one, two vitrually silent ones, and an insignifigant one the rest of the world. Yup, five countries are against us. OH! Six! IRAQ is against us too. Well damned, can't spit in the face of a whole SIX other countries now, can we? Cuz you know there are only like 7 or 8 countires in the whole world...

    The way I see it, this argument is pointless. In a few weeks time (unless a MIRACLE happens and Saddaam, you know, gives in and does what is required of him), we will be going in there, and we will oust him. And the liberal wacko loudmouths will be all up-in-arms about how evil we are. And then everything will go smoothly (as smooth as war can be), we will slowly start to pull out of Iraq, leaving a stable, democratic government behind, the mission being a total success.

    Then in 2004 every since one of the Democratic Canditates for president will be fighting each other for the chance to claim they supported the War in Iraq too. And then Clinton will come out of the woodwork saying that HE counseled Bush to go ahead with the war.

    To think this party produced such men as JFK. Ah, how the mighty have fallen.

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 18.2.03 1158)

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I don't even know wehere to begin. The irony is there is a peace rally going on outside my office right now... I am beginning to think that you are not even reading what other poeple write.

I am just not sure you even question REMOTELY the policies of Bush, Jr. You have the idea that no matter what Bush Jr. does, he obviously has the best intentions - when there are HEAPS of evidence that this war is so immoral and wrong. You accuse people of being partisan - ignoring all relavent arguments and historical facts they present (which you simply dismiss as "liberal bias"). I was opposed to Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush, Jr's policies (which were not all that different - Clinton was just as much of a monstor as the Bushs with regards to his foriegn policy).

We have a "popular" President (who lost the popular vote, and would have lost the recount - something the Rebulicans no longer deny, not that anyone is reporting). And prior to 9/11, was largely viewed by most people as a buffoon...

I would normally take into account you are from Orange County, CA - but I grew up in Irvine - so there goes that....

Thousands of women and children are likely to die (if the first Gulf war is any indications). But what the hell, we are liberating them anyway, right? From a sociopath we supported while he was killing his own people (and we knew about it). For weapons that he MIGHT have, and that WE helped him develop all during the 80's. He's is such a threat to US, in fact, that - at the height of his military strength - he could not even defeat Iran with our help.

But he MIGHT be developing weapons, that no one can find, that there is no conclusive evidence he has, and that only the United States ( and Tony Blair) claim still exist.

But let's bomb Iraq anyway...



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1272 days
Last activity: 1069 days
#58 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Leroy
    But he MIGHT be developing weapons, that no one can find, that there is no conclusive evidence he has, and that only the United States ( and Tony Blair) claim still exist.


Yeah, it's not like he's violating a UN resolution are anything. That's the thing that PISSES me off about the protestors over the weekend because we basically got lots of "Down with the US" and "Bush is Hitler" shit but all of these fucking losers gives SADDAM HUSSEIN A FREE PASS. Nobody says "Hey war is bad, Saddam is too" it's all about how evil bush is while Saddam and his troops run amok over Iraq LOOTING, TORTURING, KILLING and RAPING. It's AMAZING how little human rights mean to you liberals when it makes a REPUBLICAN president look bad.

Man, being snowbound for three days without reliable internet does wonders for a mood...



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#59 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.73
You know, in a weird way, I think I agree with Pool-Boy.

I legitimatly think Jr. is a horrible president. It's not because I'm a "liberal partisan," it's because I'm a social libertarian, balanced-budget hawk, urbanist, and foreign policy internationalist. Jr. is 180 degrees from me on these four big issues, and is pretty far from me on a host of smaller ones as well. He could call himself a Democrat, Republican, or Whig, and I'd still think he sucked if he kept the same policies.

I'll consider voting for someone - Democrat, Republican, or Independent - who shares my philosophy on at least three of these big issues, and also lines up on some of the little ones. If it's an exceptional person I might even overlook two of them. But it's a very rare Republican that shares my views on even two of these issues.

Now, you may think I'm right or you may think I'm wrong, but please give me the benefit of the doubt that my dislike for Jr. is an informed, concious decision.

Now, I think there are many others who share my views. And I agree with Pool-Boy that this sometimes (not always) manifests itself in anti-war protests, when it should be manifesting itself in Anti-Bush protests.

I haven't made up my mind on the whole war thing, although as I stated above I think a dyslexic orangatang could have handled the situation better than Jr. But I agree with Pool-Boy that those who hate Jr. should protest Jr., not the war. And I think you'd probably get a lot more people also. I'm not going to any anti-war demonstration (unless, of course, there's naked women there) anytime soon - mostly, quite frankly, because of who I would be associating with by default. But I'd show up to an Anti-Bush demonstration in a heartbeat even if Gore Vidal was the only naked protester.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
The Masked Hungarian
Pickled pork








Since: 23.1.02
From: Staten Island NY USA

Since last post: 3392 days
Last activity: 3391 days
AIM:  
#60 Posted on
Here comes a nice blanket criticism of today's war protesters....

IT'S NOT THE SIXTIES ANYMORE PEOPLE! A lot of these people are either trying to recapture the excitement of their youth OR kids trying to have their own flower power peace movement. Grimis makes a great point...the same people who are concerned about the "thousands of innocent people bound to die" if we go to war ignore the THOUSANDS of innocent deaths going on in Iraq right now. If the anti-war protesters were truly concerned about human life they'd be protesting the horrible conditions of Iraq.

Oh and for those screaming how we haven't found the smoking gun it turns out the UN has been giving Saddam 48 hours advance notice of when and where U2 spy planes will be flying. That MIGHT impede the investigaton!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 NextThread ahead: Miguel Estrada
Next thread: Moseley-Braun throws hat into Dem. primary
Previous thread: A slightly different State of the Union...
(2296 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Oh, fuck. (Yahoo! News) This sucks to no end. But it doesn't diminish his bravery in the least. RIP, Cpl. Tillman. God-fucking-dammit to Hell.
The W - Current Events & Politics - We need more protesters like this (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.159 seconds.