Will anti-war protesters help Iraq + explain their position?

Let me see if i can translate this little bit of warmongering-ese . . . .

@BigBlocky:

I wonder how many people who were frothing at the mouth about how wrong the US was will now actually do something other than protest? Will they travel to Iraq and try their rhetoric out on the people who suffered under Saddam. Will they say that more inspections then leaving Saddam in power was the way to go.
Will they visit Iraq and help the reconstruction? Will they admit that their worst fears didn’t occur and that the result is better than what would have occured had nothing been done?

Translation - it is wrong to protest the attack and war-waging upon one country by another for the purpose of removing a bad leader. Not only this, but if you feel that these attacks are wrong, then you are responsible for cleaing up the mess. Am i close?
This is fair. I feel like protesting that the US is continuing to leave our leader alone when he clearly should be dumped.

When the media is shown the WPD devices and the world knows who umongst the ANTI-DOANYTHING camp will say they were wrong?

translation: People who say attacking another, currently non-aggressive nation because it may have WMD’s obviously want nothing done about this situation, as waging war is the ONLY way to correct this.
The fact is, regardless of the apparently predictible outcome, it will be impossible to prove that NOT going to war might have had any effect. Bush has neatly taken care of this. Also i believe that “not going to war” is not necessarily “doing nothing”, so am i in this camp because i don’t believe that war is right?

How can anybody take protesters seriously when the people they are supposidly trying to help now look upon them with contempt for wishing more Saddam upon them……

translation: Iraqi’s look at people protesting the bombing of their country with contempt. These protestors wish that Saddam would persecute these people more.
Well, i certainly have trouble taking many of these people seriously - “oooo . . . 12 people in newsouthbumf*ck are holding a silent vigil for peace . . . i bet Bush is sooo impressed by that that he will call off the war”. The rest of your statement is . . . how do you say?? F_alk - can you find a word for this??

Help those who wish to see to see. For those who wish to remain blind let them stumble about as the fools that they are. I will listen to you when you speak, but when you shout and lie I close my mind to you.

Protestors are shouting lying people who do not deserve to be listened to?

BB

The protesters aren’t lying, hypocritical people (well, most of them anyway :wink: ) they are mostly good people who just want peace & think the best thing for our country is to stop the war. I don’t agree w/ some of their methods, but they believe they are doing the right thing & who really wants war…?

What I don’t understand is what the alternative is. If we stop the war now & leave, Iraq’s current leadership will remain in power & the stalemate w/ the UN will resume. The inspectors will inspect, GW will rave, & really nothing substantial will be done to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people, just like the last 13 years. Only now (in this scenario) that we’ve proven we won’t choose the military option by withdrawing, Iraq will have no reason at all to comply w/ the weapons inspectors & will once again call the shots. Over the last 12 years the only supposed progress that has been made w/ Iraq & their weapons has been either by direct military force (that is airstrikes) or by the threat of immediate overwhelming military force (that is over the last few months). If we aren’t willing to fight what the heck do we expect to accomplish with this regime?

I think the UN’s inability to work out some sort of compromise between the hawks & doves was scandalous & a shame on both sides. But now the war has begun what difference does it make? If the Iraqi leadership cared one whit about the people it’s supposed to lead & protect they would surrender & give up this HOPELESS conflict. As I see it, as strange as it sounds, the only powers doing anything positive at this point to HELP the Iraqi people are those of the Coalition. With the regime ousted, Iraq can rejoin the community of nations, rebuild its economy, befriend its neighbors & receive loans & more effective humanitarian aid. The sooner the war is finished, the sooner that can happen. Going back the the endless futile inspections, the crushing economic sanctions, not to mention the ongoing terror, torture & murder of the Iraqi regime is not a viable option. The antiwar protesters are good people who want peace, but they are not being very realistic…

JMO

Ozone27

I just found it interesting that within days of television accounts of Iraq blowing up WMDs in front of weapons inspectors, Bush turned things up.
And i don’t think i twisted very much. Call it “reading between the lines” - determining the meta-message. I will try to believe that you are simplistic enough to mean precisely what you say, but i’ve dealt with the “anti-protestors” a few times.
Having said that, i am not a “protestor”. I think that the Canadian compromise was not a bad solution, and that the French, Russians and Chinese helped to precipitate this situation through their absurd remarks. At the same time, I also agree with Art Dingwall that Bush is a “failed statesman”. I also agree with SUD that the UN is beginning to prove itself increasingly ineffective.
I am happy that the number of casualties is low (seemingly more allied forces have killed themselves than the Iraqi’s . . . ) thus far. Still, if the goal is a regime change (and not oil) then this worries me. Much as Canada is in dire need of one, where does it end? I will attempt to not fall into the slippery slope fallacy, however it worries me as there are too many regimes that appear to “need to be changed” - many of them as a result of anglo/other colonisation and bounds-overstepping.
Useless as i believe the methods and messages of the protesters are, i do not make the connection between telling a gov’t to not wage war against another country, and wishing for nothing to be done, or having a responsibility to help following the conflict. This is why i questioned your remarks

I wonder how many people who were frothing at the mouth about how wrong the US was will now actually do something other than protest? Will they travel to Iraq and try their rhetoric out on the people who suffered under Saddam. Will they say that more inspections then leaving Saddam in power was the way to go.
Will they visit Iraq and help the reconstruction?

there seems to be a disconnect here.

My worst fear would be an nuclear attack by Israel, but that’s pretty unlickely to happen. I expected more oil fields to be set aflame, on the other hand I expected Basra to fall more quickly. I also expected a north front.
When I heard that the Turks sent troops to Northern Iraq, I expected my second worst fear to come true, but as far as I know, they only reinforced their troops allready deployed in the border zone and didn’t make any advances.
Turkish troops in Northern Iraq would be a problem with American forces present, without them, it would be a nightmare.

I think it was bad to start that war in the first place, but to leave unfinished would be even worse.

Meijing, there is one reason & one reason only those Turkish troops are massing at Turkey’s southern border. According to Turkish diplomats, they are preparing a defense against possible incursion by “Iraqi” troops. What they are really saying is they are afraid of possible incursion by KURDISH troops from northern Iraq, since Kurds there are actively aiding the Coalition, the US supports Kurdish activities there, and I would presume that there is a fear on the part of Turkey that given their obstruction of active support to the Coalition for such an extended period of time, the US might turn a blind eye to Kurdish incursions. Turks have a long history of hatred & oppression of ethnic Kurds, so this to them must seem a very real threat.

Therefore a Turkish advance into northern Iraq would be an EXTREMELY BAD thing for the Coalition.

@cystic:

Useless as i believe the methods and messages of the protesters are, i do not make the connection between telling a gov’t to not wage war against another country, and wishing for nothing to be done, or having a responsibility to help following the conflict. This is why i questioned your remarks

I think it should be obvious by now that should we be unwilling to wage war on Saddam Hussein’s regime, that would be tantamount to admitting we can/will do nothing about his brutality & possible banned weapons development. That is because every small concession Iraq has made toward disarming since the Gulf War has been under the threat or after the execution of attacks on its territory. In other words, violence is all Hussein responds to!

I’m sure that many anti-war protesters will certainly assist in aiding the Iraqi people through Red Cross & other humanitarian organizations. That I don’t think is the issue. The issue is whether the people of Iraq are better served by having Hussein ousted via military means–hopefully as swift & conscientious as recent events have suggested it could be–or by further endless embargoes & sanctions that do nothing but strengthen the regime. I think the answer is obvious…

Now the REAL issue vis-a-vis the protests is really the question of GW Bush PERSONALLY: that is his tenuous claim to the Presidency (when the majority of Americans did not vote for him & the shady means by which he won); his “Dirty Harry-style” foreign policy; and the visceral, irrational & pathological hatred many liberals have for him. The latter is extremely reminiscent of the right-wing hatred of Bill Clinton. I opposed that, & I oppose the current movement against Bush.

What I REALLY oppose however is the LIE that these people are only concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people. Since clearly the war is being conducted in the most humane, precise way possible; that American troops are probably risking themselves more because of their efforts to protect civilians; that Iraq will clearly be better off after Saddam is ousted & a more representative government–one where Shiites & Kurds, who are helping us & who clearly want the regime gone, have a say–is established; that UN economic sanctions after the war will be lifted and badly needed–and delayed–humanitarian supplies including food & medicine will be provided; take all this into account & you see that realistically speaking, the protests are not about the welfare of the people of Iraq at all…

They are about the narrow political interests of the extreme left.

How do I know? I am a Democrat who lives in Northern California & all of my friends (including my girlfriend, bless her heart) are in total opposition to the war. Most of the communities around me are expressing their deep dislike of the current situation as well. Believe me, I have had an opportunity to listen to the views of the left-wingers around me, many of whom have been involved & even arrested in the course of the SF protests. My analysis has been that these people oppose GEORGE W. BUSH & HIS GOVERNMENT ALONE; that due to the internal weakness of the Democratic Party that they feel their voices have not been heard & won’t be thru normal channels; and that they oppose GW’s ultra-hawkish foreign policy. That they CARE about the Iraqi people is true–that they are realistic about it & believe that peace is really the best thing for them: that is a SHAM. The Iraqi people have simply become the pawn by which the ultra-left hope to accomplish the narrow agenda of eliminating GW Bush. In a sick way, many on the ultra-left WANT to see more US & Iraqi casualties in order so that “more people will see the wrongness of GW Bush’s actions”.

Keep in mind these people are my FRIENDS and the war has created a terrible divide between us.

Ozone27

I am a Democrat who lives in Northern California.

Really? That’s gotta be pretty hard to find. :wink:

@BigBlocky:

I wonder how many people who were frothing at the mouth about how wrong the US was will now actually do something other than protest? Will they travel to Iraq and try their rhetoric out on the people who suffered under Saddam. Will they say that more inspections then leaving Saddam in power was the way to go?

I wonder how many people who are such keen of getting that war will take up the guns and volunteer. Will they go to the mothers of the soldiers killed by friendly fire? Will they go and explain why this smart bomb still kills civilians?

Will they visit Iraq and help the reconstruction? Will they admit that their worst fears didn’t occur and that the result is better than what would have occured had nothing been done?

Will the ones who burned the house down pay for the firefighters? Or will they expect payment for the lighters they needed to burn it down?

When the media is shown the WPD devices and the world knows who umongst the ANTI-DOANYTHING camp will say they were wrong?

When the media comes up with “there are no SCUDs, these former messages have been false”, when no WMDs are found… will anyone of the empty warheads say they were wrong and deliver themselves to an international court?

Help those who wish to see to see. For those who wish to remain blind let them stumble about as the fools that they are. I will listen to you when you speak, but when you shout and lie I close my mind to you.

Didn’t you say something like “not every evidence is correct” somewhere else? WTF is the one shouting? Who is the one lieing, the protestors or warmogers? And you expect me to keep my mind open while saying you won’t listen to anything i say.

CC: Naaah, i prefer to pull back to my non-native status.

@BigBlocky:

When I say “I will listen when you speak, but when you shout and lie I close my mind to you” you get “Protestors are shouting lying people who do not deserve to be listened to”. I find this most interesting. Not sure how you got this, I guess you must just believe something and adust the facts to suit your belief.

Hey BB, do you remember how often you though i called you a USie? I did that once explicitly, but you kept on raving on it when i did it implicitly. And that’s what you doing here. You either address us implicitly, or you are talking to your bedpost. And as i think you are sane enough to know that wod will not listen nor react, i assume that you address us implicitly.

It’s odd that you twisted everything I said yet never answered nor addressed the point that I was trying to make. You never listened to what I was saying. I’m patient, I want to try to understand the otherside, do you? I say I don’t want to listen to protesters who lie, you hear I don’t want to listen to protesters because they all lie. It’s easy enough to misunderstand the otherside when not trying, you seem to be trying to misunderstand me to further your opinions….

That is the point in tranlsating: You dont answer or address…. you translate.
And you said something like you will not listen to those that shour and lie. You never mentioned the protestors in that sentence. How should we know you meant them? If we assumed that, and were wrong in that assumption you surely would have tried to blame us for that. Remember that kind of thing already happened. For the isunderstandings: Wasn’t it you as well who said “perception makes reality”? If you don’t want to be misunderstood, then make yourself more clear.

I dislike that you continually blame us for misunderstanding you either by interpreting too much or not enough into your words. If it was one of them continuusly, i could understand, but for me it seems both all teh time.

Logic is a great tool and exposes the superficial. Explain to me why not going to war is ‘more good’ then going to war.

‘Going to war’ always includes killings, suffer, pain. ‘Not going to war’ sometimes includes those. Unless you call killing, suffer and pain good, then i think the conclusion is evident.

A few regional conflicts would go nuclear, we’d let the French and Germans sort out the problems while N. America colonize mars…… Israel would nuke the arabs and since the US doesn’t pay off Israel anymore it wouldn’t be the fault of the US. India/Pakistan/China heck the entire area would have a few nuke exchanges then things would settle out. A much better world without a bully to enforce world order against UN wishes…

Wait, when will Canada have their first orbital rocket?
You have N.America in one line, then the US in all the next… do you wonder if someone takes you as USie then? You provoke that misunderstanding here.
For the rest… in your words:
prove it…

@BigBlocky:

I really wonder what some protesters are thinking when they call Bush a murderer and yet don’t mention Saddam or worse, blame Saddam’s actions on others.
…
However when I see people yelling out that “bush is evil” I have the overwhelming urge to ask the person. “So you’re in support of rape gangs, political murders and savage repression of others”.

But you know the term “lesser of two evils”? That includes that there are two evils, and even if GWBs invasion is the lesser evil, it doesn’t make it “no evil”.
You say you hate people not thinking. I say i hate people seeing the world in black and white only. Wether we include each other in our “hates” is unspoken.

For the rest of the thread:
I was kind of nearly laughing when i first heard the gossip of the turks going into Iraq. They would have lead the arguments of GWB ad absurdum.
For the humanitarian aspec tof the invasion: i have read somewhere that the US troops don’t have enough food and water to feed the Iraqi people more than two days max…. and that they need the help of UN and Red Cross etc utterly. Some polemic: Freedom doesn’t feed mouths.

When the media comes up with “there are no SCUDs, these former messages have been false”, when no WMDs are found… will anyone of the empty warheads say they were wrong and deliver themselves to an international court?

No SCUDS? Why don’t you explain to the soldier sitting behind the Patriot missile battery shooting them out of the sky over Kuwait right now! :roll:

You seriously think we’re not going to find anything in Iraq?

@Deviant:Scripter:

No SCUDS? Why don’t you explain to the soldier sitting behind the Patriot missile battery shooting them out of the sky over Kuwait right now! :roll:

You seriously think we’re not going to find anything in Iraq?

Have a look at
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAN8XQ8MDD.html
On Saturday Maj.Gen. Stanley McChrystal talked of “no SCUDs” up to then. Whatever missiles were shot down before must have been something different then…. even though the gossip said “it’s been SCUDs”. (see for example http://www.abc.net.au/ra/newstories/RANewsStories_812138.htm
)

That’s what i said in my line.

For the second: I don’t know. I have heard of a disguised factory. I wonder how you can instantly know that it’s been a chemical weapons facility … and not a biological, rocket, whatever armanment. This too quick analysis makes me doubt.

If the USA would retreat now, the result would be something nobody wanted, Saddam would be stronger than ever and bombs have allready delivered hatred.
It was wrong to start that war in the first place, but it’s too late to stop it now.
I must adimt that I’m not wholeheartly with the American troops. When I hear of Turks going to invade, when I hear of street fighting in Um Quatar and Basra, when I hear of Apaches downed, when I hear of riots in Cairo, I have to think, I said so, this war is a mistake. Let’s hope burning down the house, doesn’t set the whole quater on fire.

@Meijing:

It was wrong to start that war in the first place, but it’s too late to stop it now.
I must adimt that I’m not wholeheartly with the American troops. When I hear of Turks going to invade, when I hear of street fighting in Um Quatar and Basra, when I hear of Apaches downed, when I hear of riots in Cairo, I have to think, I said so, this war is a mistake. Let’s hope burning down the house, doesn’t set the whole quater on fire.

Good point that hopefully the political damage & chaos that has been unleashed will not spill over into other areas (though it probably will)…

This is not directed at Meiji, rather I’m using his statement of concern as a starting point…

I don’t agree that it was 100% “wrong” to start the war, because the so-called peace beforehand (which was really more of a semi-effective very porous siege situation than an actual peace) was also very wrong. Those on the far left easily forget that up until last week they were denouncing the UN sanctions & embargoes against Iraq as crippling & counterproductive (which they were), then someone steps in after 12 years to do something positive to end the standoff & now that is even more wrong because the person stepping in is an ultra-hawk right-wing Republican & its gotta be wrong 'cuz everything he does is wrong, right?]

OK so the UN sanctions & endless inspections were wrong & war vs. Hussein is wrong then what would be the right course of action? We could lift all the sanctions & welcome Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime back into the world’s good-'ol-boy network, let him buy all the weapons he wants with his people’s oil…but then of course when we were doing that in the 80’s well WHADDAYA KNOW?–that was wrong too!

I guess the only right course of action according to the ultra-left and the peaceniks would be to politely ask Saddam Hussein “Sir, will you please please please step down…” & hope he does. Otherwise, let’s just let him do whatever he wants…

Because Hussein will ONLY RESPOND TO FORCE.

Ozone27

The list of mistakes in the case of Iraq is long.
It was for sure wrong to built up Sadam in the first place.
It was wrong not to overthrow Sadam after he attacked Kuwait, at this time the support, among Europeans, among Arabians and among the Iraqis, would have been much higher.
It was wrong to try containing Sadam by sanctions, it simply didn’t work as it was suposed to.
It was wrong to haste into a war, ill prepared and with lacking support.

It’s hard to say how to fix things broken as badly as this and problems as complicated as this are unlikely to have simple solutions. But if you think war is the solution you should take the time to convince your allies, to ensure you get the support you expect and to convince your opponents that you are not going to harm them.

Maybe I wouldn’t be a good leader, I rather think twice before I act, if you ask me for a quick simple solution I can’t tell you, I’m no man of deeds. If I play a game, my opponents sometimes complain, that I’m too slow, that I think too long, but in the end it’s often me who wins the game.

@BigBlocky:

… But the French want the crack dealers there because they supply the crack…

cough cough cough It’s not like that the guy who now burns down the house told the dealer how to make crack, isn’t it? Why do you blame only the French again for something that the US have done the same way?

If they don’t find any WMD then some allied leaders should be tried by the Geneva and UN conventions.

Leagally, finding WMDs should not make any difference. Pragmatically seen, finding WMDs will “clean” any guilt by the US leaders.

And if they do then the French leadership and everybody who was against this should be tried for supporting enemies of humanity, sounds fair to me….

Accuse the US for supporting the Taliban, Iraq, Contras, etc etc?
Hey, a serious question: Was it ok to support an enemy of humanity to fight against another enemy of humanity (like Hitler and Stalin, they were even allied at some stage)? How can you decide which is the bigger enemy? Or do you decide that only by your own agenda, the opinions/polls of your people… ? Or is it simple “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”?

Do put yourself automatically with the worst of those on the other side of my position :-)

Yup, i always assume the worst :)

F_alk, you said "‘Going to war’ always includes killings, suffer, pain. ‘Not going to war’ sometimes includes those. Unless you call killing, suffer and pain good, then i think the conclusion is evident. "

So are you saying war is always wrong? If yes then you are wrong as stoping hitler was not wrong. If no, then what you said really is sophistory and is not a logically true argument and this is a waste of time even typing it.

I should have said “starting a war” instead of “going to war” then. There is a fine difference in that.

I put all kinds of good stuff in my last post, you didn’t comment on any of it but rather concentrated on attacking my words without commenting on the overall meaning…
…
F_alk as far as I can tell you have seen not one thing you agree with from what I have said. I often wonder about people who can see nothing in common with the other side…

Let’s say, we are even then, ok?

I don’t think any scuds have been launched yet. But nobody lied, they have always said “Either it was a scud or ……”. Not exactly a lie but a bit too misleading for me.

Well, the news was different over here. But, just as Ozone mentioned: Could have been the media who are not paying attention.
–-----------------------------------------------

I think i agree quite a lot with Mejjing. Actually i cannot see any differences in the opinion from what he/she wrote. But, i can imagine that the situation can be much worse in a yera (in contrast to BB).
There are more consequences than the obvious Saddam-away-rebuild-Iraq.
One of the main concerns i have is the following (i have written that already somewhere, but i will repeat briefly):
North Korea provably has WMD and with medium probability a long-reach carreir system. They are not attacked by the US, no matter how “hard they try”. Iraq has no proven WMDs, and provably no long-reach carrier. They are attacked.
The US have also announced a change in their strategic paradigm, allowing for inventions were they see fit. The way the Iraq conflict evolves fits into this new strategy.
If i was a mediocre dictator, what would i do:
Get WMDs and long reach carriers ASAP or faster!
Good bye, Non-Proliferation. That is what i fear will happen, and the world won’t look better then.

@BigBlocky:

F_alk, the US never supported the Taliban directly.

I stand corrected.

The US did support the B’aath party against a Soviet leaning governement long long ago. It about 10 years for Saddam to grab power. Again, the US didn’t exactly create Saddam either.

“not exactly” is pretty vague, isn’t it? Who brought the Iraq the knowledge and capabilites to produce WMDs? Before and during the first Gulf War, the US was a big supporter of the Iraqi regime, and this support did not stop even after SH gassed his own people (not to talk of Irani soldiers during that war).

But so what?
Your point is what?

My point is that you try to make the US look better than the French. A point i strongly disagree. Notice that this does not mean that i want to make the French look better than the US: both have an extensive list of “wrongdoing”.

You claim that going to war is different then starting a war? So what exactly are you saying. That starting a war is always wrong? I see, so it’s best to watch a weak enemy get stronger and stronger, then watch it start to slaughter millions but you should do nothing because starting a war is always wrong?

“starting a war” is firing the first shot, “going to war” includes replying to that attack.
@ War always wrong, doing nothing beforehand:
Kind of that. I know this scenario sounds like a dilemma. I assume that the “slaughter of millions” are the own people of that formerly “weak enemy”, right? So, you propose to go in on any country that you think is your enemy, that is weak, because at some stage this could change?
What if it doesn’t change your way, what if it stays weak, or the regime changes to the “better” from the inside? What if you see something as an “enemy”, but the people are content and happy with their regime?
I cannot see the future, i do not believe that my western culture is superior to every other, so that i have the right to promote this culture, be a missionary of it.
So, yes, i say, starting a war is always wrong.

As for how you decide what is right or wrong. Simple.

Sitting on your a** watching Saddam cause 10, 000 deaths per month while planing future death and destruction is wrong.

Doing something that results in more good than harm is right.

Use occam’s razor, right and wrong are easier to spot then most people think.

Is it right to sacrifice 10 lifes to save one other life? Is it right to sacrifice one life to save one other life? Is it right to sacrificie one life for 10? for 100?
Who decides which lifes are “worth more” than others?

Occam’s Razor… well, i don’t see the connection of “Plurality should not be posited without necessity” here. I see a necessity for more than black/white, right/wrong, good/evil. A “lesser evil” never is “good”, just because there is a “greater evil”. By the way i think you want me to use Occam’s Razor, i should cut away all things unnecessary, those in between the good/evil etc.
How do you define a fundamentalist, how do you define a fanatic? I would find that very interesting, because in my definition they use Occam’s Razor just the way i suppose you want me to.