Viewing Thread:
"Anti-War protestors speak"

http://news.independent.co.uk (SPACE) /world/politics/story.jsp?story=337654


----

And only 2 arrests.
Not a violent, lefty mob.
Normal people expressing their concern and fear for blindly following the USA.

Ah, back to my favourite forum (couldn't get a connection for a couple of weeks, and then found stuff didn't work and i had to reformat).

Unsure on where i stand here now, issues such as the validity of pre-emptive action and what is intrinsicly 'wrong' and what's just 'us' fighting in accordance with our beliefs against 'them' doing the same.

Still, i'm suspecting maybe what's more valuable than pop culture's latest morals (okay, an exageration) is consistancy. So long as we can assume all people to be equal, then if someone does something to somebody else, surely in their own beliefs it's also acceptable for, in appropriate surrounding circumstances, for us to do the same thing to them?

I'm not certain on this yet, i've been knocking the concept around for a while though, and i think it might make a pretty solid universally applicable mantra.

It does suggest though, that sadam himself has opened the door for people to have a pop at him a long time ago.
On balance then, i'd be in favour of action, not for the motive of covering our own ashes, but for the good of the middle east and the victims of his dictatorship.
I'm still very... interested in how his regeim will be replaced (ie, back to right and wrong and replacing one group's beliefs with anothers).
Like i said, unsure where i stand.

Still, a shame that the US and UK only really seem motivated by questionable selfish interests (not saying their motives are 'wrong' (or right), just a shame that it's *only* those motives).
Still, if the end result will be the same (*if* - some kind of attention needs to be given after the war's over, i believe. not sure what though), if the end result will be the same, ultimately i'd have to support action if peaceful routes don't work, while expressing regret for the inevitable scars of war.



It's good to be back fellas :^)

Too true cookie monster, except it was the United Nations who laid down the condition that the coalition forces stop short of removing Saddam from power, the mandate was simply to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait and back into Iraq.

The UN feared that if it was seen to fully finish off Saddam it would break support from the Arab coalition allies. Which is also why eliminating SCUD missiles became top priority - if Israel retaliated then the Arab allies would also break away.

~~Belldandy~~

Well Saddam has to be retired. He is a threat and a menace. Whether an SAS group are sent in to assasinate him, or whether we bomb his palace, he must be stopped. The biological weapons that he has are VERY dangerous. Indeed anthrax spores can survive for 50 years. Perhaps if Bush's dad had continued fighting Saddam when his troops were scattered, we wouldnt be facing this siuation.

The USA sold conventional weapons and some chemical agents (not anthrax) to Iraq prior and during the Iran/Iraq war, and the remnants of this were destroyed during Desert Storm.

It's true that if it hadn't of been for 9/11 then this may never have been an issue...but 9/11 happened so maybes and ifs are irrelevant now. We can only stop further attacks from happening now.

~~Belldandy~~

Belldandy wrote:
> However, I'll accept that some people won't believe any of this until
> a large chunk of central london lies under a mushroom cloud or we
> suddenly wonder why we've got anthrax appearing again.....Iraq's
> "lost" a massive quanitity of it, because you can easily
> lose anthrax can't you ?

Wasn't it the USA who sold them the Anthrax in the first place...?

I'm not sure we should be going to war with Iraq... Well, I think Saddam has to be gotten rid of, but to me it seems we're going for all the wrong reasons. So many allegations fly around that we're the ones who armed Saddam in the first place, now we're only going to war to save ourselves from the potential threat, ignoring the fact that the Iragi people have been tortured and used as test subjects for weapons...

I don't really know... If a greater good comes from the war and Iraq gets a democracy then maybe we should go, but Saddam hasn't been letting weapons inspectors in for years, the only thing that's changed is that the USA has realised that certain people are not as scared of it's military might as they once were... If 9/11 hadn't happened Saddam could be building a nuke now and we still probably wouldn't be pushing for a war, because no-one would believe that any country or organisation would attack the USA or it's allies...

Feel free to pick any holes in my argument (as I'm sure you will :D)

These were people demonstrating for what they believe in.
Who is anyone to tell them they're wrong?

It's an expression of personal belief.
...breathe deep...look, I'm in a bad mood and this isn't even directly related to this topic, but what's the big deal with people showing they're opposed to something?

I applaud them for taking a stand, any stand. For not being apathetic about any subject and for making an effort.

Which is exactly why the attack on Saddam's regime needs to go now, not be delayed by endless debate and diplomacy. It's quite right that people should express their own opinions on this, but we've reache a point now where a dithering public opinion is crippling nearly every military operation there is.

Before 9/11 Bush was given a plan by USSOCOM to "extract" key Al Queda officials from Afghanistan. Bush was advised to forget about it because public opinion wouldn't be with him if he did. The same holds true for this situation.

As a society and a nation we've gotten lazy, distrustful and introspective, we're the proverbial chicken with it's head in the ground whilst the foxes circle. Like Europe, most of the UK public is still watching for the Russians to bound through Germany. Ain't going to happen and wars of that kind won't again.

Yes, as a last act Saddam could launch against Israel, but he knows what Israel will do. It's no good going out in fire if theres no one to remember you. Also Israel has a massive complement of Patriots, Aegis systems and AWACS to guard against that kind of attack, plus the obvious targets for the first night of an attack will be these weapons. With the leash off, there's no reason why all the WMD Sites in Iraq could not be annhilated in hours. If he does use WMDS then we'll give him one hell of a pounding back, plus intelligence suggests Saddam using these weapons could prompt a military coup against him.

Lastly, if a reason not to attack is because Saddam could use WMDS on Israel, then I'd say thats every reason we need to attack.

~~Belldandy~~

Bush wants Regime change in Iraq. So when Saddam's back is well and truly against the wall (once the war is under way), what's he going to do.... He's going to use his weapons of mass destruction in defiance - perhaps as a last resort.
And who would he target - Israel. And they'd respond. Then all hell would break loose.
This might not happen, but it could, if the storming of Bhagdad doesn't quite go to plan.

Bush has most of congress and the senate, plus 70% of the US public this weekend in a poll, Blair has most of Parliament and around 55-64% of the public.

The refusal by Saddam to reallow inspectors is damning itself, as is the dossier from last week, and the fact Saddam has been in violation of UN resolutions for 11 years and the world has done nothing.

However, I'll accept that some people won't believe any of this until a large chunk of central london lies under a mushroom cloud or we suddenly wonder why we've got anthrax appearing again.....Iraq's "lost" a massive quanitity of it, because you can easily lose anthrax can't you ?

Like I said before, if any anti war person can answer some tough questions, rather than just asking more questions in reply, then I might pay attention.

~~Belldandy~~

Belldandy wrote:
> I still say it's fear thats driving these anti war protests, and a
> small hardcore with questionable motives,

*

The same thing could be said about Bush & co.
Fear is driving the idea of pre-emptive strikes by a small hardcore with questionable motives.