Viewing Thread:
"being anti-war in Scotland sucks"

As an apologist for Saddam/appeaser/supporter of terrorism I'll be attending Saturday's anti-war march. Due to tragic geographical circumstances I'll be protesting in Glasgow rather than London. In the papers this morning I read all about the line-ups:

London: blah blah....Ms Dynamite
Glasgow: blah blah....John Swinney

For those who've never heard of John Swinney: you are more lucky than you could ever know. He is no replacement for a gorgeous popstar. If I could ask for my money back, I would.

Light wrote:
> But I've yet to hear anyone come up
> with a reason for the coming war that dismisses the "Dubya wants
> Oil", "Al-Quaida have little or nothing to do with
> Iraq", or the "What about North Korea and Israel?"
> arguments against war.

Well firstly I'd say that I want prood the war is for oil, other than the vague "Bush is a texan, texas=oil, texas=cowboy hat=on oil board=big business" kind of arguments. I mean hard proof, like that the anti war lobby demands of Iraq's breaches of 1441. Where is the hard proof that THIS IS all about oil ?

Al Queda ? Colin Powell's address highlighted 3 kep pieces of additional evidence. That Iraq "harbours" a terrorist network headed by al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab Zarqawi. This network helped establish another poison and explosives training camp in north-east Iraq. Powell showed a picture he said was of this camp.In addition he said some al-Qaeda groups were operating in northern areas of Iraq. Although they were in Kurdish areas outside the direct control of Baghdad, he said Iraqi agents were working with the groups. Finally, Iraqis visited Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and provided training to al-Qaeda members. He said Iraq maintained active links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, using its embassy in Pakistan as a "liaison office". Yes, this evidence could be fake, but prove it is faked.

North Korea ? N.Korea has requested the UK to mediate a non aggression treaty and has, possibly, valid reasons for wanting it's nuclear facilities online for power. There is no reason to force N.Korea into a conflict or to pursue it like Iraq. N.Korea is not a real threat, unlike Saddam.

Israel ? You mean Israel and the Palestinians don't you....... takes two to make peace, not one. Until the Palestinian Authorities can rein in the suicide bombers and sundry then the US, and others, have little choice but to back Israel. If the Palestinians were to try peaceful protests instead then that would make a different situation and give other countries the public backing to bring Israel in line.

Sorry if I keep replying ot al your posts Light, but thought I may as well offer some of what I know or believe....

~~Belldandy~~

This is indeed a very strange situation; to see the right thing being done for all of the wrong reasons. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that removing Saddam is a good thing, and it would be wonderful to think that this is happening to the end of making the world a better place.

But it isn't like that at all. The world will still be pockmarked with dictators and unjust rulers who use whole nations as piggy banks (Dubya falls squarely into the latter category come to think of it...). Al-Quida will...well, there is some debate about whether the fall of Saddam will do anything more than distract the US's attention from them and allow them to set themselves up in a country that is actually ideaologically friendly to them.

I'm not in the business of telling people who disagree with me that they must be stupid for not prostrating themselves before the self-evident truth in what I say; frankly I've heard some very convincing arguments that the US is not acting purely out of self interest by pursuing this war. But I've yet to hear anyone come up with a reason for the coming war that dismisses the "Dubya wants Oil", "Al-Quaida have little or nothing to do with Iraq", or the "What about North Korea and Israel?" arguments against war. All I've heard in rebuttal of those very valid points is a mixture of crudities and abuse from the pro-war camp, and a seeming determination to drown out the questioning voices with spastic words and idiocies.

Boy I'm in a mood...

I think lots of people, including myself at times are sitting on the fence on the issue.

I think it is a touchy subject.

I don't want to see a war but at the same time I don't want to be living in a world where there is always going to be a chance of some kind of Nuclear or chemical war.

Noticed a thing on tv a while back about kids in Iraq being taught how to use guns like Ak47's etc.
Thats no way for a kid to be brought up.

I refuse to be for or against it all until I am shown hard facts. There is too much crap on the web and in the media.

With words obviously

I ATTACK YOU WITH WORDS

YA

Like IB

The Americans are lying about a lot... so far there is no proof at all that the two are in alliance.

In Bin laden's recent video thing he said an attack on Iraq was an attack on all Muslims...

The American Powel said this was proof that they were in alliance

BUT

I read a transcript that showed that Bin laden attacked Iraq and its leaders

SHEEPY wrote:

> And also Iraq have absolutely no link with Al Queda... its true you
> know.

But how do you know that... The same way we don't know that they do.

Until there is proof then its a hard one to say.

Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Paging Dr Freud!

You can't page the dead, but you can send them a telegram:

http://www.afterlifetelegrams.com/AFTERLIFE/

Damn keys

And also Iraq have absolutely no link with Al Queda... its true you know.

Peace marches acheive nothing other than to feel you're doing something to express your views or something

SHEEPY wrote:
> and sounds ittitating.

Paging Dr Freud!