*DAMN R6 Forum

Now don't get me wrong...I believe fully in the right to freedom of speech. But to demonstrate anti-war sentiment now is the wrong thing to do. We have soldiers in battle sacrificing their lives for Iraqi freedom. Instead of booing Bush...praise the bravery and determination of those keeping freedom alive.


On the other hand....we are the agressors. THis is the first time in American History where we've actually "invaded" another country. If we had U.N. approval there wouldn't be a problem. That's why anti-war sentiment is strong. We've always been the defenders or "world police"....not attackers.

Please post your thoughts....

PY, if done right, people can do both.  I have nothing against the majority of the protesters giving voice to their opinion.  My only problem is with those that think rioting is still freedom of speech.  There is no reason for them to infringe upon anyone else's civil liberties, no reason they should stop traffic, and block streets.  No reason for them to trash a McDonalds, or toss public trash-cans at police cars.  

Let them demonstrate for peace with peace, that would be great.  


PY, not even close.  Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Granada, Panama.  All countries that US forces invaded without the UN (all but the last two were before the UN existed).  Even if you want to remove Puerto Rico and the Philippines because of being part of the Spanish-American war, you can't really say we didn't invade the others.  

I'm not saying that those acts weren't justified, that's not my point.  I think they were, just as I think this is (more justified then not).  The point is just that the USA has done this in the past, we shouldn't kid ourselves about it.

I agree with you fully bucc on the protests. Yes the U.S. has been the invader before, but not on a major scale as this. Cuba was invaded because they had their targets pointed at us. Not only that but the Russians had installed nuclear weapons facilities there. Phillipines were invaded because of the Japanese during WW2. We stayed there to ensure that the Japanese wouldn't start another war. Puerto Rico...same idea. To have a defense against Cuba. However the Puerto Ricans wanted us there so we really can't call that an invasion. I'm not sure what you mean about Mexico. There's never been a full scale invasion into their country. The only time we've warred with Mexico is during the Texas Revolution and THEY were invading us.

Just because you've done it before doesn't mean it's acceptable to do again.

But if its for a noble reason?

I would refrain from calling it a noble reason when there are so many risks involved and you also have to ask yourself if all this international diplomatic chaos is worth it.

PY, you are talking about just the last 50 years or so.  Teddy Rosevelt invaded Cuba the first time, btw.  We took posession of Puerto Rico and the Philippines long before WW2 (we took the Philippines back after the Nipponese took them from us in the first place, but we took them from Spain long before that.).

So I wasn't talking about the bay of pigs (that wasn't really a US invasion, our government backed rebel Cubans.)

We also invaded Mexico (remember, most of the west coast belonged to them once upon a time).

And don't take this personally PY, because it's not meant to be directed at you.  But what happened to teaching history in schools anymore?  So many people here seem to not have a grasp on it.  I understand the Europeans not knowing American history, but not the Americans.  

Kami, I think I clearly said that.  Any reason you felt like repeating it?

Good ole McKinley decided to invade Cuba in 1898. And we decided to take the Philippines (we actually bought it from Spain for $20 million after the war), Guam, and Puerto Rico along with it.

Other than that, I agree with you on all points Bucc.


Yes, they still teach history in some places  ;)

Unfortunately World History in high school is a load of crap. U.S. History isn't any better. They only teach you what the Department of Education wants you to know. The rest you have to discover on your own. I really don't have a firm grasp on World History but I do know a lot about WW2 as that is my favorite subject. Past wars such as The Bay of Pigs, or the Spanish-American War are given the honor of an 8-sentence paragraph in today's high school history textbooks.  ??? I am taking a history course in college right now, but its mainly U.S. history based on the troublesome years of the settlers. You've had a head start  ;) Anyway...back to the subject.

Kami...it may not be noble in our eyes because we lavish in freedoms that others don't have. The Iraqi's on the other hand consider us thier "gaurdian". They welcome the freedoms we're offering.

at this point, i don't see what any of these people are hoping to accomplish. is bush going to go "oh sorry guys, you're right, i'll stop right now?" the best thing people can do is go home and hope everything will be ok. even if it is free speech, it seems kind of counterproductive and negative at this point.

and i was also thinking today... where would being peaceful lead us? if we stopped our campaigns, wouldn't the attacks just keep coming, like they came out of the blue on 9/11? Would they ever stop, would they ever decide all of the sudden they like western culture? I really don't know.. it just made me kind of depressed. There aren't any answers today it seems.

First of all, the AP World and US History classes aren't so bad.  They leave out a lot of course, but they do a pretty good job giving as broad a coverage as you could really expect in a year of high school.  

Second, don't feel depressed cookie.  The way I look at it, if the United States stops doing things that we know make us unpopular - such as invading disliked countries, imposing our culture on the rest of the world, etc - that can only reduce anti-American sentiment.  It certainly won't increase it.  But of course you can never stop it - people will always envy those with a better quality of life than their own (perceived or otherwise).  Really the only remarkable and shocking thing about September 11th was that it succeeded.  It's rare that such an event has been carried out in the US, and it seems like it would be difficult for it to happen again.  Only, I'm a little surprised that people ever thought, and continue to think, that it can't happen.  The attacks were out of the blue only in that it was our government's first major domestic anti-terrorist failure.  

Anyway, advocating peace can only help bring it about, whereas advocating war will certainly not promote peace.  Wishing for terrorism to stop is like hoping for an end to all bloodshed - that may not be possible of mankind - but perpetuating the violence isn't likely in any way to help.  Whereas, ending our own aggressions has at least a fighting chance.

It's basically people exercising the right to demonstrate freedom of speech. They feel its necessary for the world to see their position. You also have to understand the mix that's involved. Some people there believe firmly in peaceful diplomacy to solve conflicts. Others were just there because it was an excuse to skip class ???. Occasionally there are some who are just there because they follow blindly.

I saw The Life of David Gale tonight. It was left-wing political propaganda. Nearly made me vomit 5 times. If you're anti death penalty then this is probably the movie for you. The bullcrap that spewed from it could drown the greater New York area. Eh....anyway...if you don't enjoy having a political view forced on you, I suggest staying away from this movie.

On one hand I'm moved by the civil disobedience of the people willing to get arrested for their beliefs. They are willing to truly stand out for what they believe in. On the other hand, I am annoyed by their lack of practicality. Their actions are going to inflame anyone who isnt completely anti-war, and probably push those that were undecided to supporting war just because they will be mad that they had to wait in traffic. Also, you can believe what you want about whether protesters are right or wrong, but its unacceptable to me for people to say its wrong for them to express their beliefs. If you truly believe this, than you do not believe in freedom.

BTW, I took 2 full years of US history and 2 full years of European/world history in high school, both of which went quite in depth to prepare my for success on the respective AP tests. Not all of our public schools are failing.

seriously u stupid peace protesters think that if you puke in the steets it will bring peace??? get real democrats

Mr Wuggles, could you possibly stereotype a bit more? Just because a small group of protesters performed a stupid action doesn't mean all protesters are. Furthermore, one could argue that their action wasn't so stupid because of the incredible amount of attention it got. Also, not all peace protesters are democrats, and I don't think that any of them believe that their actions are going to stop the war. I'm guessing you're pretty young, so I won't say any more.

in fact tatsy they are not protesting war at all they are anti-bush furthermore, anti-american. some think communism is the best think scince the sandwich. besides i am 15 i have a very strong political view and the attention should be lookin at war not protesters making blockades, falling off bridges, and making threat attempts to burn the U.S. embassy down. ;)

One could argue it, but one would be hard pressed to prove it. =D

Seriously, any admiration I could have for them showing their commitment and dedication to their cause is completely offset by their illogic and blatant stupidity.  It's supposed to be a peace demonstration, so by all means, throw a trash can at a cop car, or destroy a McDonalds, those actions show peace.  Sure, one of their main points is protecting the civil rights of the Iraqi citizens (from bombs), but they show it by infringing upon the civil rights of American citizens (not with bombs, but still).  They protest violence with violence and stopping traffic.  Like you pointed out, the illogic of this behavior is more likely to push people away from their cause, then bring people towards it.  I'd also admire it a lot more if it were pointed in the right direction.  Protest Bush, Congress, the government.  Don't hassle people driving to the store, or trying to enjoy a day in the park.  

As for the education comment, even Tasty hasn't said he's had as much history as they made us take in school.  I had everything from ancient Greece and Rome to European and Asian while still in Jr High.  History was treated like math when and where I went to school, we took it every semester from 6th grade on.  History, Math, English and Science were required every semester, period.  Then you had some other classes like Government and such that were tacked on to it.  So, my shock isn't calling any of you stupid, but in the lack of emphasis schools seem to place on history anymore.  

Oh, and psycho sniper, the US paid Spain for them, but after we invaded them.  That was common practice back then, and kinda still is, but we call it "humanitarian aid" or "reparations" now a days.

I don't know - I think most schools have some kind of comprehensive history class all the way through - I had "social studies" year-round from K - 8th grade - in high school they begin the course breakdown.  (i.e. a year of WH, one of US, one of Euro, etc)  

Also, I see the problem with throwing trash cans or destroying property, that's fighting violence with violence and I agree that it is stupid.  (Although it seems analogous to fighting a war in Iraq to prevent possible future war.)  Anyway, what about stopping streets?  That seems like one of the best forms of protest to me - it inconveniences without causing any severe lasting harm.  If you're trying to make a statement, what a great way to do it without burning, killing, or mutilating.

stopping streets pisses people off, it doesn't get the message through. IN fact, it probably makes people dislike their message even more for them rendering their lives that much more difficult. The other day in phoenix i was trying to get down to my favorite resteraunt for dinner (because i didn't have a kitchen or food to prepare) but alas, the street was blocked by protestors who were spitting on people, throwing things, and shouting inflammatory statements. yeah, that's peace and getting your message out. futhermore, im beginning to think this is what the terrorists want- first our airports are clogged and hyperlocked down, next our streets our clogged by our own people, our economy is dying... (but looking up recently!) what the hell.


as for history, i've had THAT up the wazoo. my school has a very very comprehensive and intensive AP world history dept (which i've had to endure) and i took AP US history freshman year. granted, i don't remember too much about what happened after the american revolution because that class was my favorite to sleep in... but i can recall tidbits here and there. I think i'm going to be a history minor. maybe even major.

I will restate again. The majority protesters don't give half a crap about the war, They hate Bush. When Clinton was in power, he statrted lobbing cruise missles everywhere. Did you see any protesters? No, in fact they were jumping for joy they were bombing people. I'm sorry if anyone here is Democratic. I have a hatred for them because they have to whine and cry when they arn't in office. No matter how the war turns out, they will still try to find something to point fingers at Bush.  :(

Yes, I agreed that street blocking does not get the message through. I also agreed that violence is an inappropriate and illogical way to protest violence.  As far as this Mr. Wuggles person, you are ignorant. How can it be argued that the protesters are not protesting war? This doesn't make any sense at all. Yes, most probably are anti-Bush, since his policies directly conflict with policies that they think should be implemented. It's pretty stupid to say they are anti-America; they just have a different idea of what America should stand for and what its policies should be than you do. There are socialists/communists that protest, but I think most of them have a different idea of government than you probably associate with communism/socialism, and they make up a small minority of the total protesters.

Bucc, in high school I took the same amount of stuff as you. In 4 years I took 14 semesters of social studies (10 of which were history), and more than 8 semesters of everything except math, which I elected not to take senior year.

The Peace protests are fine, blocking streets during non-commute hours (like they did in Austin) isnt all that bad. If it was in rush hour than it would be bad, but we did it at like 10:00 PM on a weekday. Anyhow I attended the protests because they are in my view a historical event. I am more there as a documenter than a protester. This could go down as the biggest anti-war movement since Vietnam, who knows it could even become larger. I will have a photo documentary and maybe even a film documentary. Mr. Wuggles, your arguments are bullshit. You have to be the most ignorant person that I have ever met. You have taken 8 American social studies courses? Wow thats saying alot, you learned where Iraq is on a map yet? I really dont like saying this, but I am such a superior human being than you. So is 90% of the world.

Haha Coss, I'm inclined to agree to that about Wuggles.

I think protesting is pretty lame, it doesn't affect anyone imo. And anyway there are protesters and there are protesters, you shouldn't mix the anarchists and commies up into the same bunch as the more peaceful protesters who have better arguments and sounder opinions. And Coss, this worldwide anti-war movement is bigger than the one against the Vietnam war, probably because of the internet that makes coordinating things like these much easier.

The problem i have with the war-protestors, whether it is in the streets, my classes or on these boards, is that they are willing to ignore all of the evil things saddam has done and continues to do to his people. At the time of the last gulf war, the same protesters were saying saddam is a good guy, just misunderstood, and that he is not really a threat to his own people......today they agree he is a bad guy and horrible for iraq, but claim he is in no way dangerous to anyone outside of iraq. Tell me, what will it take for these people to wake up?? another iran-iraq war? an iraqi attack on israel? on the us, maybe?

the huge contradiction in the peace-camp discourse is that they claim to be acting in the name of the iraqi people, when everyone except the worst of the murdering baath-party scumbags, who know they will have to pay a heavy price for what they have been to iraq for the past 30 years, cant wait for saddam to be gone so they can get on with their lives. now matter how noble the protesters intentions, the fact is that they are defending an ruthless and brutal totalitarian state. and guess what else: saddam couldnt wish for anything better than naive western college students etc., who are willing to go on the street to defend his bloody, despotic regime.

the point mr. wubbles was making (although he did so in the most 13yr-old way possible) is that for the majority of the protesters, this isnt about iraq specifically, but about denouncing american hegemony on world affairs and taking a stance against bush the noob. very few if any of the protesters really care about iraq, they just wanna tell the US to sod off. and i agree with that all the way. i am personally in favor of the war because of what i know about iraq and saddam hussein, not because of what i think of the US. its too bad that a lot of people do the opposite.

btw: is mr. wubbles a right-wing clone of Zaitsev? they sound exactly the same, except for the democrat republican thing.

hey freedom of speech coss its your opinion.... have i opressed your opinion yet? i think not. peace protests are hurtful whether its the right cause or not. i think the ppl should support the president in his time of need. also the troops need. ppl if you dont like what i say tune to radio station 1490 am

rush limbah is superiour to everyone in this whole entire thread and he would agree with me

and i think hollywood protesters have a right to their protests. but alot of them are just stupid and have no college education such as Cher that dropped out in 9th grade

if you dont like what i say fine but i dont go around bein an ass and say im superiour(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/offtopic.gif)

Ok, you like Rush Limbaugh, the most conservative asshole out there, great. You're obviously filled with more propaganda than Jesus.

What the US did wrong is that they went in too early, if they had waited a bit longer, maybe Blix had been able to complete his job, who would expect him to complete the weapons inspections in three months?

Tell me ppl what am I spossed to think, becuase ppl are saying that I am not a person that complies under freedom of speech.

LOL, that's exactly one of the reasons its so stupid of them.  They are doing what they are protesting against.  They are validating the other side.


First, who are they to inconvenience the rest of us?  It's ok for them to infringe upon our civil rights in any way?  Sure, it's not burning me, but it's still violating my rights.  Why is it ok for them?  Look at it this way, is it ok for a bunch of people supporting the war to come and stop you in traffic for an hour or two?  Ok for them to ruin your day in the park?  It sure isn't ok for me.  They can demonstrate without even minor violations of my liberty just fine.

Second, how about the ambulance that can't get through the traffic.  You know, the one stuck a mile or so down the road, that they don't see.  What about the person in that ambulance that is in need of care, but has to go 15 minutes out of its way to get to the hospital because Michigan Ave is blocked for 4 miles?  How about the guy driving his pregnant wife there while she's in labor?  What about the police on their way to help someone?  Or a fire truck?  No, seconds and minutes don't save lives, do they?  Well, if seconds and minutes save lives, then blocking traffic risks lives.  Far from harmless.

Not that this seems to matter to so many of the protesters.  Their message is more important then the law, my civil rights, or the health and safty of someone else.  Oh, wait, isn't that the same attitude they are protesting!  That's a great way to protest something, adopt it for yourselves.  Idiots.

Now why would I listen to idiots?

Like that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.


11 years, not three months.  11 years.  Fuck three months.  The UN has been impotent about this for a decade, so stop acting like this was rash.

It's one thing to say other things should have been tried, but the UN inspections haven't been worth shit in a decade.  And they only had any success AFTER the USA was rattling it's saber.

Notice that the chemical plant that the US forces discovered today were nowhere on the UN inspectors lists at all.  Fuck, why they gave the Iraqi lists and schedules in the first place shows what a joke it was.

Many of the large protests are planned and approved by the city. The EMS services are notified, and traffic delay signs are put up through on the whole route. The city prepares for protests, and now a days the protests are so large that sidewalks cant hold all of them. Hell why not ban Mardi Gras it blocks Bourbon street. I can see if the protests happened everyday it would be a problem that needs to be addressed. As for vomiting on the street, dispicable. Rioting is uncalled for and only the most zealous anarchists consider it. I cant say how people feel in bigger protest cities like New York City and San Francisco, but the protests here in Austin, Texas cause a 5 min delay.
Wuggles, knowing that you have very near similar beleifs of Rush Limbaugh only shows more so how ignorant you are. The man is confused with over nationalistic propoganda. You know who else was as over nationalistic as him? Hitler! Thank god he holds no political power.

Keep in mind I live in Texas. Education in the North is a lot different than education in the South. Not to mention Texas is experiencing major budget problems especially in the state education funds. Thousands of teachers have lost their jobs. The only classes we were required to take in high school were one year of U.S. History, one year of World History, Government/Economics. That's it. U.S. History focused mainly on the U.S. and its progress during its growing years. World History focused on Egyptians, Russians, Incans, Aztecs, Greece, and mostly the Roman Empire. Government/Economics was a joke.

Personally, I believe it depends on the teacher and the school district's committee that handles what's taught in school.

The current situation in Texas public schools is quite sad.

Cossack, if the protesters gave that notice all the time (they didn't in Chicago or San Francisco), and if they stayed on their routes, I'd accept what you are saying a bit more.  But even when they are planned, as in New York, the protesters quickly left the planned route, didn't they?  Spilled off onto the other streets, and blocked the alternate routs as well.

Protest, by all means.  But if you are going to have a peace demonstration, make it all about peace, the in your face aggressiveness of some of them just makes me laugh at how stupid they can be.  Not because they believe in peace, but because they pretend to believe in something they don't completely understand or think out.

Bucc, sure it's been a problem for a long time but that doesn't mean you shouldn't follow what you started with the 1441 resolution.

You guys are attacking protesting by attacking specific protesters, which is ridiculous.  People need to voice their opinion, and this is a perfectly good way to do so.  Yes they should get permits, and yes they should follow their routes, and, I hasten to add, most do.  So there are a few bad apples in the bunch, a few unplanned protests, whatever.  Those specific groups/people are in the wrong, but the practice itself is not at fault.

Wuggles, I am not going to claim that I am "superiour". (Though I will claim better grammar and spelling skills)  However, for god sakes, make your posts a little more informed and less inane.  At least most people here do, no matter how crazy their opinion is.

And now, a rare moment in forum history: I agree with Buccaneer! Somewhat, at least.  Weapons inspections would have failed again, and again, and again.  The only way to get Saddam out of power is force.  Some people don't understand diplomacy, it's quite obvious.  HOWEVER! We should have done this in '91, '94, or '98, or at some point in the future, when we had a fucking reason to!  We should at least have UN approval.  Sure the French are crazy, but when Germany does not support our war?  Then we should reconsider.

The Bush administration (and yes, it is the administration, not the country as a whole) has started a war unilaterally, under the flimsiest of pretences.  And that's something I just can't support.

Also, when will people learn that protesting the war and supporting the troops are not mutually exclusive ideas?  It's so frustrating to see such ignorance.  

Example: My mother and father both participated in Vietnam war protests. At the time they were a 1st Lieutenant and a Captain, respectivly, in the United States Army. (Volunteers, not draftees.)  Can you honestly tell me that they did not support the troops, when they were the troops?

Obviously Rush spews conservative propaganda because he absolutely hates crying heart liberals and their left wing butt buddies.

http://homepage.mac.com/pyrex1/radio.mp3

Listen to this. It a radio broadcast from a Seattle station. You'll like it.

That's the 3rd time you've posted this Py.  It's nice, we listened to it.  It even drew comments.  But enough!

I think I've made it clear that I'm only talking about the bad apples.  That I'm all for peoples rights to protest.  My argument with Loud was about how the "bad apples" hurt their cause more then they help it, and seem very stupid.


I agree, it should have happened long ago.  We (UN and USA) waited too long.  Part of that I blame on the previous administration too.  Clinton should have applied much more pressure on Iraq and the UN over it.  Instead he only brought up Iraq when he had to draw attention away from domestic issues (*cough*Monica*cough*Whitewater*cough*).  Sorry, had to clear my throat there =D.  He really did that beautifully though.  Whenever the heat got too high, Saddam would "act up" just enough to require attention.  

Anyway, Yes, we should have acted long ago.  But here's my problem with waiting.  If you agree force would always be necessary, why wait and let him grow stronger?  Yes, UN support would have been best.  But France alone could have held that up for years to come.  

As for Germany, didn't their current chancellor win it's elections in opposition to Bush?  Being anti-Bush was part of his platform, wasn't it?  So I don't put much faith in that kind of opinion.  

BTW, why do people keep leaving out the Aussies?  I keep hearing USA & UK.  What about the Aussies?  They are right there in the thick of it too.

One other note for the protesters.  Seems that public opinion shifted in the UK this week.  The majority there now seem to back military action.


Nope, I'm in complete agreement with you on this point.  They don't have to be exclusive at all.  But people on both sides seem to think so.  As I pointed out, my father and uncles participated in Vietnam as well.  And were spit upon and called names by protesters at the time.  This is a problem that cuts both ways.  Stupid people will lump them all together, because it's all their minds can fathom.

This is how peace protesters stand.

Do you ever notice that these protesters never start a protest in the morning? Do you know why? Because these idiots don't get up until 2pm in the afternoon. They haven't worked a hard day in their lives.

Half these hippies have no jobs, and the smoke so much reefer they are the reason that there is a drug smuggling problem in the states. Their all a bunch of hypocrites, b/c they protest for peace yet they throw rocks and bricks at riot police. If they were in any other country, they would be mowed down at the knees by a minigun.

I have not read any of the other posts on this forum, b/c it's a novel and I am at work and don't have the time.

But that's how I stand on those gay protesters. If it was any of their family members that died at 9/11, i gaurentee you they'd be gun ho with an iron fist.

Stop doing the "politically correct" thing and get some common sense. If you don't go in and fight, they are just going to kill you first, no matter who you are, and where your views stand.

I need gas for my car, so hurry up and take over the oil.

(http://members.rogers.com/kosdest/destsig4.gif)

Well DAMN, that's the first smart thing someone has said in a while !  ;)

Yes, gas stations are bad enough why do we need this crackpot Saddam is beyond me.

Three words destructo, what the fuck. Your world view is totally warped, just as an example, there are more demonstrations going on in the rest of the world than in the US.

3rd? To my knowledge I've only posted it twice. Besides...half of the posts in this thread only reiterate what the previous ones says.

Destructo, we start our protests at noon because that's when maximum visibility time is in the University community. Your little fantasy about protesters all being lazy hippies that never work couldn't be more wrong, most of the protesters here are either students or employees of the university. Very few protesters would ever consider using violence against anyone, including the po-po (most are pacifists). Contrary to what you may believe, many of the loved ones of 9/11 victims have spoken out strongly against the war. In fact, 75% of New Yorkers oppose the war. Almost every statement you make is a massive generalization about all protesters based on the actions of a few.

Your post doesn't display any common sense, only a complete lack of thought.

Wow Dest, you sure arent that smart. Do you seriously think we are all pot smoking hippies? I have never touched marajuana in my life, I work hard to make ends meet, my parents are protesters and they immigrated here from Russia with barely any money and  now they are highly renown middle class artists whose art is owned by many renown people. Even George W. Bush owns a mosquite table we built for them. You are a steryotyping menace.

Cossack, spare me the story, my parents are immagrints also and came to this country with 45 bucks. I have no family in this country; My father now has a successful constrution company, and have chapters all over Canada and the US. so stfu.

What you people don't understand, is that assholes like the one in the middle east cause people to run and fear for their lives. If you have a virus in your system, do you not kill it?


I'm sorry to say, the people for war outweigh the ppl against it 3 to 1, and that's fact.

Hate for the westren world, freedom peroid, does not discriminate. Protest all you want, a nuke does not ask itself, these ppl are against the presidents actions, and war, so I won't kill them, i'll just fly by, on the conterary, he'll target you first b/c you will sit back and "debate". We tried to debate, and it failed b/c the bitch does not want to co-operate with the rest of the world.

Don't forget, that war got you your freedom. And if war is the way it has to be protected, then so be it. If the Us has the balls to rid the world of an anti-christ, who only shows his strenght against the weak, then not only am I for it, sign me up.

How can you guys talk about how you want to rid the world of terrisiom, and then protest against taking out one of the top terrorists. I guess it looks so wrong when your sitting at home on your comfy couch doing whatever the fuck you want, because well, you have the right to. What is so wrong with giving other ppl that same chance?

It's funny how you guys play a game based on death, and scream "DIE" to  other people in the game, yet when real actions must go that same route you protest it.

You say i'm not that smart, well I say that you must be blind as a bat if you don't see the dangers ahead. Your very way of life has been attacked, the way of life that thousands b4 you died for, and now again that way of life as become under seige and you want to protest it's protection?

Keep protesting peace, but know there are thousands who volunteered to protect you and your family from harm.

Like I said before. If that was your mother or father who died. You would be singing a different tune.

I wont spare you the immigration story because you brutaly steryoptyped all protesters as pot smoking hippies. Your pompous asshole assumption sickens me. You say Iraq has gone agaisnt the world, the US has too. You know the UN, France, Germany, China, and Russia all major world powers have come out against the war along with countless other countries. The US is going against the world. Bush did not try diplomacy, it was not a failure of diplomacy, it was no diplomacy. Over and over we asked him to use diplomacy, he did not. He said we will not be diplomats with Sadaam Hussein. He said this over and over for months and months! We also caused many problems for weapons inspectors.
 
Our very way of life has been attacked BY Al Queda! Sadaam has never attacked us, we attacked him, twice now! The links between him and Usama are speculation still. Not to mention this will severley destabalize the region. When is it our problem what Sadaam does to his own people? Go invade Myanmaar for mistreating their citizens, invade China for mistreating Uighers, invade Indonesia for mistreating the Timorese, invade Russia for mistreating the Chechens, invade Rwanda for attacking Congo. To go to war with someone because they are mistreating their own people is ludacris.
Many 9-11 victims are against this war, there is a group called Not in my name. Anyways how would you know what they felt? Are you a 9-11 victim? Go on your little crusade Destructo, go to the Desert and fight the Iraqis. You said, "sign me up." Why arent you in Basra now?

 :)The protesters just need to block their own work places instead of making other ppl pissed off. ;D

I would loooooove to be one of those riot policemen now. Cuz, I would be saying in my head "C,mon c,mon riot! Riot so I can leagally beat the crap outta them without a lawsuit..." ::)

You want a smart comment, i'll give you one to think about.

The UN. Ah, the powerful body, the only body which can provide a legitimate call for action. But ask yourself this, how can the UN provide legitimate action when it refuses to credibly enforce its very own resolutions? This is a body which has passed a long line of resolutions against Iraq, 18 in fact, including the recent resolution, which incidentally requires full and immediate cooperation with UN Weapons inspectors. In the months since the resolution has been passed there have been no real signs of Saddam Hussein fulfilling these terms and disarming.

Only with substantial pressure of war has he begun the smallest of disarmament activities - the destruction of a few al Samoud missiles. But these weapons are neither the chemical or biological weapons which he has shown no sign of destroying, or providing proof thereof.

If you look back in the UN records, we've been trying to use diplomacy for the last 12 years. How much more time can we give them? One year? Five years? Ten years? Or should we wait until smoke fills the sky in another city?


Worldwide Intel indicates that Saddam's regime has aided and abeded terrorist organizations that have targeted and attacked the US and US embassys. Not to mention intel has shown that this regime seeks nuclear capabilities and already possesses chemical weapons. If you can honestly sit back and not feel threatened by that, than you deserve to be commended on your tolerance. What will make your tolerance subside? 2 planes into the WTC was enough for me. Even if Saddam's regime didn't give a penny to the cause, I'd just as soon not give him the chance to help fund the next one.

Just for argument sake, let's say there is no direct link between al-Qaeda and Saddam. But the idea that an active cooperation is likely to form is reasonable. Whatever differences there have, they both come from the same region, share language, and formal religion, and therefore there is ease of contact; more important they share a common enemy, the USA/freedom. I for one would feel a hell of alot better if that tie/contact did not form.

Saddam Hussein is a man who has led Iraq to war in Iran and Kuwait, he is a man who has secretly produced chemical and biological weapons, he is a man who fired weapons at Israel in hope of provocation. Saddam Hussein is not a dictator who wishes to sit happily in his Palaces and watch the world go by. He is a dictator who has always been the aggressor, and the response of Britain, the US and its allies is not one of aggression but one of defence.


What is so wrong with freeing the Iraq people from a brutal dictator? That is just a bonus that comes along with it. Not only will taking Sadam out of power eliminate some and put the Us in a good position to hunker down on Al Queada, it gives te Iraqi people what most of them want anyway, and that is freedom. Just like the US is protecting your freedom, and eliminating the enemy threat, along with there allies.

All and all, I am sick of writing about this. Let's just leave it at this;
We agree to disagree because god knows we can go back ond forth for hours.

I'm going to bed.

I guess you are right on that. Neither of us will convince eachother of the others viewpoint, especially on an idiodic gaming forum. The reason I am citing the UN and beleive me I think it is very weak in enforcing its resolutions. Yet we are going to war because Iraq broke a UN resolution and International Law, we are breaking International Law to go after him.
This brings me to a whole new point. Imagine if the UN did enforce its resolutions by force. The UN would be in numoerous Wars. They would be in China, Rwanda, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Myanmaar (Burma), countless African countries, Lybia, the list goes on. Nations would not be nations, they would not be sovreign entities. Beleive me I am for Civil Liberties, but not at the price of an independent nation's sovreignity and right to govern itself. Would you like the Chilean government influencing domestic policy in the USA? That is my rant of why I think the UN enforcing its resolutions with force is a bad idea.

and it's "not in our names" not what you said.

Oops got singular and plural mixed up.

Also, everything you've mentioned, dest, about why Saddam Hussein is bad is old news.  Saddam hasn't attacked Iran, Kuwait, or Israel in years.  There is limited evidence that he has secretly manufactured any weapons for a while as well, or aided terrorist organizations.  While the UN hasn't shown force, over the last 12 years they and the US have kept Iraq very well in check.  Even without "full compliance," which could render Iraq susceptible to attack from its neighbors, Iraq has been well regulated.  

People ask why after 12 years, Saddam should be allowed "another chance".  I ask, why are we attacking now after 12 years of limited or no hostility?

Ultimately, to keep more in topic of this thread - whether you believe we should be at war or not, anyone has the right to voice their opinion.  Immigrant, 9/11 survivor, or not.  Yes, violent protests are uncalled for, but you can't fault everyone with a strong opinion for demonstrating it peacefully.  We aren't all pot-smoking hippies, either.

Not that there's anything wrong with pot. ;D