[10-Ring]

The more I see these demonstrators, the more I hear the babble come from their mouths, the more frustrated I get.
1st off, they shouldn't be called a "peace" movement but more appropriately, a "see no evil, hear no evil, forget all evil" movement. How do they justify a regime developing weapons of mass destruction? What do they want, another N. Korea?
2nd, they don't seem very peaceful in their demonstations. There seem to be more & more pics of them burning something, looting something, hitting or spitting on someone or general misbehaving....not too peaceful in my book.
Lastly, it seems as tho these people have forgotten what happended Sept 11th, how helpless & angry we all felt and how we all demanded our government make sure nothing like that happened again...well IMHO, that's exactly what we're doing!

Rant off...thanks for lending me the space to voice an opinion :)

[Drjones]

Make no mistake:

It is by NO means a "peace" movement.

99% of ALL the anti-"war" movement is sponsored by openly communist and anti-American groups.

All protestors I've seen just hate Bush and America, and are using the war as an excuse to miss school and work to make idiots out of themselves in front of those of us who know better.

BTW, all looters should be shot on sight.

[10-Ring]

Having a son of high school age, what has upet me lately is seeing kids get up out of their class rooms & protest in the name of peace.
School must have really changed since I graduated. I don't remember being able to speak in class w/o permission much less walk out! :cuss:

[Standing Wolf]

The self-styled "peace protestors" are just anti-Americans flying a flag of convenience.

[Blackhawk]

During about October, 1969, there was a big Vietnam war protest march on Washington, D.C., intended to demoralize and alienate U.S. soldiers in Vietnam against the war. It motivated me to immediately sign up for another tour since that's where I already was.

These pukes are just the descendants of the Jane Fondas of those days. May they get what they deserve.... :barf:

[Malone LaVeigh]

The more I see these demonstrators, the more I hear the babble come from their mouths, the more frustrated I get. Maybe you should listen to what they're saying instead of ranting about what you think they're saying. It's much less frustrating.
1st off, they shouldn't be called a "peace" movement but more appropriately, a "see no evil, hear no evil, forget all evil" movement. How do they justify a regime developing weapons of mass destruction? What do they want, another N. Korea? Most I know call themselves "anti-war", not "peace" activists. There's a difference. And what right do you have to equate their opinion with "justifying" anything? Being against one ill-concieved and dangerous solution to a problem doesn't mean being against any solution.
2nd, they don't seem very peaceful in their demonstations. There seem to be more & more pics of them burning something, looting something, hitting or spitting on someone or general misbehaving....not too peaceful in my book. Of course, the media focuses on the tiny fringe that gets unruly. Try getting 200,000 people together for any event with less violence.
Lastly, it seems as tho these people have forgotten what happended Sept 11th, how helpless & angry we all felt and how we all demanded our government make sure nothing like that happened again...well IMHO, that's exactly what we're doing! And once again, though I'm repeating myself for the 100th time, the war against Iraq has exactly nothing to do with Sept 11. Not even Bush is trying to pass off that rather spoiled red herring anymore.

[jmbg29]

Of course, the media focuses on the tiny fringe that gets unruly. Try getting 200,000 people together for any event with less violence.Well, unless 200,000 is some sort of a magic number (a sub-critical or critical mass of people maybe???) we got 45,000 people together for the WA St. Republican picnic in 2000.

Not a single violent occurence. Not one. Not to mention that the Western Washington Fairgrounds people remarking on the fact that there was almost no litter to pick up after the event.

No unruly lefties tried anything out in the parking lots either. Perhaps that is because WA is a shall issue state.

Quite curious.... :rolleyes: :barf:

[Drjones]

Maybe you should listen to what they're saying instead of ranting about what you think they're saying. It's much less frustrating.

"Hey hey, ho ho, Western Culture's gotta go!"

"America is the REAL terrorist"

"Bush = Hitler" and other cute analogies ad nauseum, ad infinitum

"Free Mumia" (See, I told ya these protests are just an excuse to further some stupid agenda!)

They also seem *quite* fond of burning American flags.

Tell me, Malone, if these people AREN'T anti-American, freedom hating communists, WHY do they burn flags?


Want more?

Or have you "thought" enough about what they're saying?


Most I know call themselves "anti-war", not "peace" activists. There's a difference. And what right do you have to equate their opinion with "justifying" anything? Being against one ill-concieved and dangerous solution to a problem doesn't mean being against any solution.

Come now, don't forget to call them "anti-American" and "Supporters of Saddam."

"Al Quaeda Fan Club" is one I liked myself....

And that's the funny thing....they fail to acknowledge the fact that every other option before war has failed miserably.

They just don't want to do what has to be done.

Its for the children.

:rolleyes:

Of course, the media focuses on the tiny fringe that gets unruly. Try getting 200,000 people together for any event with less violence.

I will bet you money if we got a bunch of gun owners together for a protest, it would be the most peaceful protest in history.

Really.

[clem]

Well, just remember who these people are and when it's all over, we'll remind them of what they said and did.

[Zander]

And once again, though I'm repeating myself for the 100th time, the war against Iraq has exactly nothing to do with Sept 11. -- MVIt doesn't matter how many times you regurgitate it...it still won't be correct.

In point of fact, the goal of removing Saddam Hussein and his cabal of terrorist followers has everything to do with September 11th. We won't be subject to any tyrant whose stated objective is to murder us indiscriminately.

You may be willing to ignore his wanton murder, torture and rape of his subjects or his invasions of neighboring countries [where his "soldiers" murder, torture and rape the conquered], but I've no idea why.

He's our mortal enemy, dedicated to providing the most devastating of weapons to those who would attempt to destroy our lives, our social structure, our economy...by any chemical, biological or nuclear means he can produce and disseminate.

He's an evil man who deserves to be removed from power; in fact, he deserves a slow and painful death. I'll settle for a quick and relatively painless dispatch as long as he is given the eternal dirt-nap.

He and Osama bin Laden can console each other in Hell...

[ahadams]

the few pathetic protestors seen in central Missouri (half a dozen protesting at the WALMART - of all places - in Jefferson City [the Missouri Capitol - I guess they figured the off duty cops who pull security at walmart and sams club would protect them from the normal people] and a few protestors near the USAF base about 50 miles away [sorry folks, all the bombers left weeks ago, we know because we heard them leave...well no, we're not sorry, come to think of it - just hope they bomb bagdad and babylon flat to the ground] were all either teenagers who were clueless or 60's rejects many of whom are actually retired by now [and are led by the 'professor emeritus' of a junior college if that can be said with a straight face].

Note to ML: failure to connect the dots on the part of various shortwave personalities does NOT constitute a problem for the rest of us.

[Jackanape]

Malone, with all due respect, I do listen to what the protesters have to say. As I live in San Francisco, it turns out that I have to listen to them quite a bit. The main protest organization here is International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), well at least they're the ones who organized the biggest protests here. I checked out their literature, and did a little research regarding this group. Turns out that International ANSWER is closely allied with the Workers World Party (International ANSWER confirmed this in an article written about them in the San Francisco Chronicle). The Workers World Party has supported the Chinese government's crackdown in Tiananmen Square, Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Their short list of heroes includes such visionaries as Stalin, Mao, Milosivich, etc.

So, what does all of that have to do with what they have to say? I mean, they are an anti war group, right? Well, like you suggested Malone, I listened to what the main organizers of International ANSWER had to say. The one individual that stands out in my memory is Brian Becker. Becker is one of the Top officials at International ANSWER, as well as a member of the secretariat of the Workers World Party. He was the co-director of International ANSWER's January 18th protest in D.C. Here's what Becker has to say:

"We know that the biggest single contribution that we can make to the final transition to socialism everywhere is to build a truly revolutionary party that can lead the struggle to overthrow imperialism at its center."

Funny, I don't hear Mr. Becker talking about war nearly as much as I hear him talk about socialism. It seems that Becker has more of a problem with capitalism than he does with war. How odd...

A quick scan of the last International ANSWER protest in San Francisco showed me that Becker wasn't just some fringe nutjob. In fact, he seems to be swimming in the mainstream of the anti war crowd. If I had a dollar for every "Destroy Capitalism" sign, or glassy eyed college kid selling "Revolutionary Worker", well I'd be a rich man. And what does Mumia, universal health care, animal liberation, and the rights of the homeless have to do with war anyway? Not much, and yet I saw all of these signs at the protest. If I were watching the protest on TV with the sound off, I'd have no idea what these folks were actually protesting. Too many causes represented at once.

Now I understand that most of the folks at this protest were there to protest the upcoming war. But the folks who organized the event are self proclaimed Marxist / Leninists. Folks whose biggest axe to grind is against capitalism, not war. So all of these well meaning folks who came out to protest the war are actually lending their support to an avowed anti capitalist group. What was the term that the communists used in the past? Oh yeah, useful idiots...

As if that's not enough, there is a group here in San Francisco calling itself "Direct Action" (a bunch of non denominational leftists from New College) has vowed to shut down the financial district of San Francisico the morning after the war starts. When I checked out their website, I found that the building that I work in is on their list of targets for protests. They intend to blockade the building to shut down business there. Mind you, there are no government offices in this building, just private businesses. So, they want to stop business to protest war... Right... And they are going to use physical coercion in the form of a blockade to deny me the ability to make a living. And this is somehow related to stooping a war? Folks here in San Francisco call these actions "peaceful anti war protests". This is not true, what they are is violent anti capitalist protests. I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Oh and Malone, 200,000 people? You mean 65,000, right? The only count that can be verified of the last S.F. protest was 65,000 people at its peak (not the 200,000 that International ANSWER claimed). By the way, this count was done by the San Francisco Chronicle, not exactly a member of the vast right wing conspiracy...

Sorry about the long winded rant folks, I've just had my fill of these protests lately...

[faustulus]

Tell me, Malone, if these people AREN'T anti-American, freedom hating communists, WHY do they burn flags?
It is a piece of cloth, get over it.

And that's the funny thing....they fail to acknowledge the fact that every other option before war has failed miserably.
Failed in the sense that he has nuclear weapons? or failed in the sense he has used his arsenal on the Iraqi people in the last 12 years?

In point of fact, the goal of removing Saddam Hussein and his cabal of terrorist followers has everything to do with September 11th. We won't be subject to any tyrant whose stated objective is to murder us indiscriminately.
I suppose N. Korea will be next since Kim Jong Il has threatened us numerous times.

You may be willing to ignore his wanton murder, torture and rape of his subjects or his invasions of neighboring countries [where his "soldiers" murder, torture and rape the conquered], but I've no idea why.
What he does to his own people is there problem, they want to buy guns we'll sell them to them. I think America has fought enough of other peoples civil wars. And as for invading other countries, one we supported the other we kicked him out of. so I don't think you could say we were ignoring him.

He's our mortal enemy
Does anyone really talk like that? :)

The fact is this has nothing to do with Sept. 11. It never has. Malone LaVeigh is right. Saddam is not, has not, probably will never be a religious zelot, Iran, you can make a case for, but not Iraq. He has too many problems of his own to worry about.

Weren't we supposed to be finding OBL? wasn't that the goal. Until he is found and brought to trial -- that is the American way-- we don't need to be sticking our noses in other countries affairs.

Look if the mere thought of India and Pakistan having nukes doesn't scare the bejeebies out of you then you don't know much about the region. If you can sleep well knowing that the N. Koreans have the Bomb and have every intention of reuniting the peninsula one day study up on your history of the area, and finally if you you can live with China's stated intent to reclaim Twian then you haven't been paying attention. Of all the threats to our security and our nation, Saddam falls somewhere above Canda and below a crazed Russian Boomer captian.

[10-Ring]

This current action in Iraq is a natural progression in this war vs. terrorism. This new kind of war will ultimately confuse alot of people who will have trouble tying all the links together.

[faustulus]

This current action in Iraq is a natural progression in this war vs. terrorism. This new kind of war will ultimately confuse alot of people who will have trouble tying all the links together.

Probably like the war on drugs.

Please explain this "natural progression."

The fact is there is stronger evidence to suggest that Saudi Arabia had more to do with the attacks than Iraq. Heck, Germany had more to do with them. If you have evidence please state it. both are evil and want to hurt americans is not a natural progression because that would lead us several other places before iraq.

[Drjones]

It is a piece of cloth, get over it. I never said anything about what I think of flag-burning.

The point is that Malone claims that these people have something valid to say against the war.

I say that the opposite is true: They do not care for any war, they just hate America.

The question still stands:

Why do you need to burn flags to protest a war?

The thought that perhaps WAR isn't the issue when they burn flags doesn't even enter your mind? :scrutiny:

Failed in the sense that he has nuclear weapons? or failed in the sense he has used his arsenal on the Iraqi people in the last 12 years? Thank you for proving my point.


I suppose N. Korea will be next since Kim Jong Il has threatened us numerous times. Perhaps.....perhaps.....

I think America has fought enough of other peoples civil wars. Explain to me how the Iraq situation is a "civil war."

Look if the mere thought of India and Pakistan having nukes doesn't scare the bejeebies out of you then you don't know much about the region. If you can sleep well knowing that the N. Koreans have the Bomb and have every intention of reuniting the peninsula one day study up on your history of the area, and finally if you you can live with China's stated intent to reclaim Twian then you haven't been paying attention.

It does frighten me that certain other countries have WMD.

How many countries you wanna fight at once? :scrutiny:

[faustulus]

Thank you for proving my point.

The only way I proved your point is if there has been a war in Iraq in the last 12 years I am unaware of. See there hasn't been and he still doesn't have anything other than what he had BEFORE the Gulf War.

Explain to me how the Iraq situation is a "civil war."

Iraq is composed of tribes, much like Afghanistan. They lack any sort of nationalism, as we know it. These tribes have been fighting one another for ages. Each leader of Iraq has tried to forge some kind of national idenity (that's why Saddam keeps babbling on about Babalyon). :) He rules with an iron fist because he is beset on all sides by rivals for rule, hence he keeps trying to kill the Kurds, the shiites, etc. We are going to do that for them? Let them do it themselves. If they hate him so much let them get rid of him. He is using the U.S. to unite the nation. Actually he has done that for sometime. You realize of course that in his eyes and the eyes of many iraqis Saddam won the gulf war.

[/list] Perhaps.....perhaps.....
That comes off as blood thirsty and I don't believe you are. And I don't want to fight any countries. We managed to bring down the Soviets without a direct war, just maybe we can do it again.

I never said war was the only reason people burn flags, but it is a legitimate form of protest. I don't see how it transforms into "i hate america" Does that mean that they don't, I can't say, I have burned a flag or two in my time (mainly because the gov. tried to say I couldn't) do I hate America, No. in the end flag burning is just an attention getter, it is something to put on the news. It calls attention to the message but it is not the message itself.

[Shweboner]

Being against one ill-concieved and dangerous solution to a problem doesn't mean being against any solution.

Well as of now war seems to be the only FINAL solution here.

In all the protests I ahve seen or heard the common theme seems to be Anti-America or Anti-Bush... not so much for 'peace' and 'anti-war'.

And for all the garbage that spills out of their mouths I cant recall once hearing the offer a VIABLE SOLUTION TO THE SITUATION. so they can stomp around all they want but all they are doing is talking.... and if you arent part of the solution you are part of the problem... and these commie jerk-offs are part of the problem.

I have no time or respect for these "people"


~Brian

[2dogs]

All protestors I've seen just hate Bush and America

You got it, Doc.

[Delmar]

We managed to bring down the Soviets without a direct war

How true-and there are a lot of Americans who died or were wounded as a result of Soviet financing in all of the "indirect wars." There seems to be a willingness of people to wait until these little dictators are huge, or "its their problem". Better hope it stays that way, because if you are willing to let it be some defenseless peoples problem, it may well become yours later on. Doesn't always happen, but I haven't heard anyone with a 100% accurate crystal ball who could tell me exactly how it is going to come out on either side. I'll stay ready.........................

[Malone LaVeigh]

This has gone too far for me to try a point-by-point, so I'll try to address the main points.
Tell me, Malone, if these people AREN'T anti-American, freedom hating communists, WHY do they burn flags? First of all, who is this "they" you keep talking about? I've been to 3 big protests so far over this war, and for that matter scores of big and small protests over the years, and have yet to see a flag being burned. I carried one in the last protest I was in, as did my Vietnam War vet friend. I have read arguments over burning the flag and understand some consider it a valid form of protest against the actions of the government. I don't personally have a problem with the symbolism, but, being a positive kind of guy, would rather wave it than burn it.

And your use of McCarthyite slurs like "anti-American, freedom hating communists" doesn't do a thing to advance your position. Just solidifys the position anyone who disagrees with you and doesn't like being called names.
...they fail to acknowledge the fact that every other option before war has failed miserably. Can you say that "every other option" has been tried? I can think of at least two that haven't. And failed at what? Regime change? Disarmament? No one has ariculated a consistent goal, maybe because if they did, there would be less world and popular US support than there is.
In point of fact, the goal of removing Saddam Hussein and his cabal of terrorist followers has everything to do with September 11th. We won't be subject to any tyrant whose stated objective is to murder us indiscriminately. Why use the word "fact" unless you have one to present. Just saying it's so doesn't make it so. Show me any evidence that Saddam's "objective is to murder us indiscriminately." That's the kind of language used to scare the sheeple so they'll buy anything. Got duct tape?
You may be willing to ignore his wanton murder, torture and rape of his subjects or his invasions of neighboring countries [where his "soldiers" murder, torture and rape the conquered], but I've no idea why. No one in this or any other US government gave a rat's rear about the torture and murder, either internal or external until he started going after oil we wanted to keep in the hands of our preferred despots. Spare me the crocodile tears, please. Rumsfeld was meeting with Iraq under Reagan while Saddam was gassing Iranians and Kurds. We supplied weapons to both sides in that war. I'm not ignoring anything, unlike the pro-war people around here. I just think there are better ways to deal with this than killing thousands of Iraqis and wreaking an environmental disaster. (Not to mention wrecking our own economy. Checked your 401K lately?)
He's an evil man who deserves to be removed from power;That description fits a lot of politicians I could name.

Jackanape:
long tome on Int'l ANSWERWow. Did you really do all of that research yourself? That material has been the subject of an ongoing debate within the anti-war movement for some months now. Most notably in the Nation. Everyone who has looked into it recognizes that this group is the organizer of the main protests so far. The debate on the left has been between those who believe we should boycott ANSWER rallys because of who they are and those who believe we should attend the rallys but distance ourselves from the organizers. There is near zero support for the core beliefs of the Workers World Party among the anti-war movement. Those folks just happen to be good organizers.

In fact the second mass demonstration I attended in SF had a lot less "free Mumia" types than the first. The Sacramento rally had very little.

But you will always see some of them at any big anti-government action. It's like the Nazis and whacko survivalists you see at gun shows. I hope people don't judge us all by them.

Oops, gotta go...

[CZ-75]

There is near zero support for the core beliefs of the Workers World Party among the anti-war movement. Those folks just happen to be good organizers.

By attending their rallies, you give them support. And how may folks at the rallies do you think really know who these folks are?

They can point to every rally attended by someone, like yourself, who doesn't support their beliefs, and leverage that attendance figure to show that they have wide popular support and deserve the ear of more moderate politicians from the left.

As to the uninformed, who generally make up the masses of these folks, I'd say that WWP/ANSWER will use the opportunity to brainwash them, if not into complete agreement, then into the false belief that WWP is more "moderate" than it really is.

[jimpeel]

The question these people like to bandy about is "A war could kill as many as 100,000 innocent Iraquis. How many innocent Iraqis are you willing to kill to depose Saddam?" The answer, which is never given, is "As many as it takes."

The counter question to this query is:

"Saddam has an established record of killing an average of 33,000 Iraqis per year. You state that there could be as many as 100,000 innocent Iraquis killed by warfare. In ten years he will have killed, on average, 333,000 innocent Iraquis. How many innocent Iraqis are you willing to allow Saddam to kill by leaving him in power; and is the killing of 100,000 innocent Iraqis to save 233,000 innocent Iraquis justifiable; or should we allow the 333,000 to die?"

[jmbg29]

I can think of at least two that haven't.And they would be.....?

[faustulus]

We keep talking about anit bush this and anti american that.

Here is a question to answer only to yourself.
If Clinton was doing this what would your reaction be?

jimpeel

I am willing to let him kill as many as he wants because it is not our responsiblity. We cannot and should not police the world. If we are going to Saddam is low on the list, We will have our hands full in W. Africa for some time.

The problem I have is we still don't have bin Laden in custody, we have no business fighting a war that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM

[jmbg29]

If Clinton was doing this what would your reaction be?I would have thought that someone had kidnapped Klinton and replaced him with a double that wasn't an agent of the People's Republic of China.

[Malone LaVeigh]

By attending their rallies, you give them support. And how may folks at the rallies do you think really know who these folks are? The fact that very few people attending the rallys know anything about ANSWER shows how much support they have. At best WWP gets an audience they hope is receptive to the rest of their message. If any libertarians were organizing the protests, then they would have an audience for their political message. IOW, ANSWER is using the popularity of the anit-war movement to try to build their own following, not vice-versa. Just like they do in inner-city neighborhoods with the free Mumia stuff.

Hey, if it works, more power to them. It's a free country and they are free to bring their message to anyone they can. I am a bit concerned that they are using a real grass-roots upwelling of resistance to Bush's empire building to their own ends and might end up hurting the cause. But like I said before, you don't get 200,000 out in sub-freezing weather if you're just appealing to the fringe.
quote:I can think of at least two that haven't.

And they would be.....? Well, there really isn't room here to answer that, so I'll just sort of roll them into one scenario.

1) Get the rest of the world community on your side instead of opposing you.

2) Get consensus to use military power to disarm Saddam. The way to get that consensus would be to credibly convince the rest of the world that military doesn't mean invasion and occupation.

3) Turn the entire country into a "no-fly" zone. Right now there are areas inside the existing no-fly zones, mostly in the Kurdish north, that are essentially autonomous.

4) Turn the entire country into a "no-crawl" zone. Any military movements detected by any of our reconnaisance tools would be instantly destroyed.

5) Let the inspectors do their job. If the Iraqis refused entrance to any facility, it would be destroyed.

6) In concert with 3 and 4 above, enforce effective sanctions. Use the oil-for-food receipts to distribute humanitarian goods to the population through the UN. Get them used to self-rule without Saddam in places other than the Kurdish territory.

7) Crack down on oil smuggling so Saddam couldn't finance his weapons aquisition ambitions.

8) Saddam's regime is administered by a small and shrinking circle of trusted officials. It may be impossible to get Saddam, but these characters have to move about to do the business of government. I would start picking them off one at a time, either by bribery or covert opps. The government could stand very little of this before it would collapse, or some insider would do the job for us. Right now, the kind of pressure we are putting on is guaranteed to sustain the loyalty of those insiders, because they know they have everything to lose if Saddam goes. I would let it be known that we have no prejudice against any post-Saddam government that wants to belong to the community of nations.

Understand in all the above, by "we" I mean an international coalition, not the US.

Much of the above could have been done long ago, but the US government, especially the first Bush admin, didn't want Saddam deposed. The US military was ordered to allow flights and troop movements following GW I so Saddam could crush Kurdish and Shi'ite uprisings. Later the Clinton admin pulled the rug out from under another Kurdish uprising.

[JPM70535]

Anti-war protestors ar Peace activists or whatever other name you care to call them have every right to demonstrate and express their views, peacfully. When they become unruly and cause the Police to have to take action, they have ceased to be demonstrators and have become instead, CRIMINALS.

And by the way, don't any of these people have jobs?

[hso]

There have been several anti-war protests in east Tennessee from groups of various sizes. Since the international socialst movement doesn't play very well here there's not much for organisations like ANSWER to work with. The problem that many folks have with invading Iraq is two fold. First, Sadam supports Hmas, a terrorist organization that know it's suicide to touch the U.S. in any significant way. Second, the CIA, U.S. State Dept., and Janes Intelligence all agreed that Sadam is only a threat to the U.S. if backed into a corner and threatened with being removed from power by U.S. military action. Given either of those points what is the justification for invading Iraq? Perhaps that the U.S. government declared war on "terrorism" and stated that any country hosting terrorists was subject to the wrath of the U.S.? Since Hmas is a terrorist organization and Sadat hosts and supports them this might be an explanation for attacking them. Is that reason enough? Perhaps, the real reason is that Iraq is a solid tangible target where we can change the leadership by exercising our will to go to war while waging a war on terrorism is a long shadowy painstaking process that by it's very nature provides little obvious signs of success beyond bad things not happening in the U.S. (like today, and yesterday, and the days and days before).

[jmbg29]

Perhaps that the U.S. government declared war on "terrorism" and stated that any country hosting terrorists was subject to the wrath of the U.S.?Yeah. Just imagine... people that say what they mean, and mean what they say.

No agitprop, no giant puppets, not even one lame:cuss: HEYHEYHOHO. Just inevitable, relentless, awesome and terrifying action! Just about as anti-left wing as it gets if you ask me.

The fact is that the protest freaks and their puppet masters would rather that we spend our time chasing shadows and projecting weakness to our enemies just as their beloved Komrade Klinton did. And watch their little hearts break when they discover that 8 years worth of fruitcake social-engineering experiments didn't gut our military. Heh, heh, heh...

They knew that a frontal assault on us won't work, so why not try the old "death by a thousand cuts" trick.

Nice try losers. It's not gonna happen.

[jmbg29]

1) Get the rest of the world community on your side instead of opposing you.That's like saying "free ice cream for everybody". Nice fantasy world you live in. 2) Get consensus to use military power to disarm Saddam. The way to get that consensus would be to credibly convince the rest of the world that military doesn't mean invasion and occupation.See above3) Turn the entire country into a "no-fly" zone. Right now there are areas inside the existing no-fly zones, mostly in the Kurdish north, that are essentially autonomous.How many years should we do that? 10? 15? 100?4) Turn the entire country into a "no-crawl" zone. Any military movements detected by any of our reconnaisance tools would be instantly destroyed.The first time a convoy of military trucks filled with orphans is destroyed, you could kiss that absolutely brilliant idea goodbye.5) Let the inspectors do their job. If the Iraqis refused entrance to any facility, it would be destroyed.See above. Be sure to replace "convoy" with "bunker". BTW, the inspectors "job" is to inspect all of the gear to be brought to them. Not to play blind man's:cuss:ing bluff with your buddy Saddam.6) In concert with 3 and 4 above, enforce effective sanctions. Use the oil-for-food receipts to distribute humanitarian goods to the population through the UN. Get them used to self-rule without Saddam in places other than the Kurdish territory.ROTFLMFAO7) Crack down on oil smuggling so Saddam couldn't finance his weapons aquisition ambitions.:rolleyes: His income comes from the 2 million barrels of oil a day that he is allowed to pump. You reckon that he may be able to buy a weapon or three with that cash?????:rolleyes: 8) Saddam's regime is administered by a small and shrinking circle of trusted officials. It may be impossible to get Saddam, but these characters have to move about to do the business of government. I would start picking them off one at a time, either by bribery or covert opps.(emphasis added) The government could stand very little of this before it would collapse, or some insider would do the job for us. Right now, the kind of pressure we are putting on is guaranteed to sustain the loyalty of those insiders, because they know they have everything to lose if Saddam goes. I would let it be known that we have no prejudice against any post-Saddam government that wants to belong to the community of nations.As I said, nice fantasy world. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

But what the heck, why don't you e-mail those excellent suggestions to Condi Rice.:p

[Jackanape]

Malone wrote:

"The debate on the left has been between those who believe we should boycott ANSWER rallys because of who they are and those who believe we should attend the rallys but distance ourselves from the organizers. There is near zero support for the core beliefs of the Workers World Party among the anti-war movement. Those folks just happen to be good organizers."

Good organizers, who happen to be socialists. Sorry Malone, but if International ANSWER were organizing a pro Second Amendment rally (um, yeah...) I wouldn't attend. If I were to disagree with the core beliefs of the organizing group, I would not attend their events, period. For all of the supposed debate going on amongst the left, a whole lot of folks (65,000 at last verifiable count) are turning out at ANSWER protests. Why is it that a fringe socialist group is the most effective organizer of anti war protests? I'll wager that there's more support at these protests for the core beliefs of the WWP than the average war protestor is willing to admit .

Perhaps the average protestor is just plain ignorant of ANSWER's beliefs. That would be hard here in San Francisco, as their affiliation with the WWP was a front page story in the San Francisco Chronicle on the eve of ANSWER's last protest. Or perhaps the average protestor lacks the strength of conviction it takes not to throw their hat in with a group they do not support. What's that saying about lying down with dogs?

Oh, and I did do my own research, thanks for asking. I got some literature at the first ANSWER protest in San Francisco (largely because the route ofthe march went right in front of my apartment building) that contained the writings of Ramsey Clark. I was so stuck with Clark's innane screed that I started to research him (the web is a wonderful thing). From this research I leaned about the International Action Center, and their connection with ANSWER, and subsequentially the connection of both of these groups with the WWP. Not all that hard actually...

[faustulus]

I have a question for all the war supporters.
What do we do after we win?
Be specific and take into acount the social and political dynamic of Iraq as demostrated by its history.

[jmbg29]

Jackanape!

Don't go and ruin it for them! Don't you know that not a single German ever attended a rally because they supported the Nazis? They were just there for the...uh...FRESH AIR!!! Yeah, that's it.
Hey, if it works, more power to them. It's a free country and they are free to bring their message to anyone they can. I am a bit concerned that they are using a real grass-roots upwelling of resistance to Bush's empire building to their own ends and might end up hurting the cause.emphasis added But like I said before, you don't get 200,000 out in sub-freezing weather if you're just appealing to the fringe.See, no support there. :rolleyes: :barf:

I never called the protesters "fringe". I called them hardcore anti-American socialist/commie/pinko rats. Not "fringe".

But hey, I've prepared for this day all of my life. Anytime you folks want to throw down, just let me know.

Sandi who?:fire:

[faustulus]

I never called the protesters "fringe". I called them hardcore anti-American socialist/commie/pinko rats. Not "fringe

A: there is no need for name calling, it just detracts from your arguement.

But hey, I've prepared for this day all of my life. Anytime you folks want to throw down, just let me know.

B: This isn't Dodge City so sit down with your bad self.

[Khornet]

where ya been? Haven't seen you around much lately.

Your points 3 and 4 above....you mean going to war with Saddam. I agree.

I was wondering when the "McCarthyism" charges were going to be flung. But two things:

He's dead.
He was right, though unhinged. State WAS full of commies. So was Hollywood.

[Malone LaVeigh]

That's like saying "free ice cream for everybody". Nice fantasy world you live in.Nice substantive reply, just like the rest of your replies. For a small lesson in getting world support, take a look at Bill Clinton and Kosovo. I was against that war, also, but Clinton did a much better job of getting world support. Also, see GHWB and a little thing called "Desert Storm." Believe it or not, there have been skillful politicians in the past who understood diplomacy.
How many years should we do that? 10? 15? 100?How long did it take to turn the northern and southern sections of the country into NFZs? Five minutes or ten?
The first time a convoy of military trucks filled with orphans is destroyed, you could kiss that absolutely brilliant idea goodbye.You're right, that would be a risk. I would use it as a backup to the NFZ only when confirmed troop movements were being used to repress local populations. If some non-combantants did get killed that way, it would be a lot harder for Iraq to get sympathy. How did those orphans get in those military trucks, anyway?
BTW, the inspectors "job" is to inspect all of the gear to be brought to them. Not to play blind man'sing bluff with your buddy Saddam.Well, you couldn't be more wrong. Inspectors are to be allowed access to any facilities thay think might be used for production, storage, or deployment of WMD. As far as 'my buddy" is concerned, you have a lot more in common with him than do I.
His income comes from the 2 million barrels of oil a day that he is allowed to pump. You reckon that he may be able to buy a weapon or three with that cash?????If you're not going to read my posts, why should I bother replying????:rolleyes:
But what the heck, why don't you e-mail those excellent suggestions to Condi Rice.My whole point in this is that anyone could have thought of these and a lot more tactics that fall far short of a war and occupation. Obviously the Bush admin has no interest in an alternative solution.
Good organizers, who happen to be socialists. Sorry Malone, but if International ANSWER were organizing a pro Second Amendment rally (um, yeah...) I wouldn't attend.And that's why I have very little hope for the 2nd Amendment. Back when I lived in Berkeley, I would sometimes attend rallys for this or that on campus. It was comical when the first speaker would say, Remember, this rally is brought to you by the Communist Worker's Party (with Chairman Bob), not those revisionist, Trotyskiites of the Sparticus League . Most people would laugh if they thought a bit about who was "sponsoring" the rally. Do you care who sponsors a TV show you watch?
But hey, I've prepared for this day all of my life. Anytime you folks want to throw down, just let me know.There you have it. The right wing answer to everything. See my comment above about who has more in common...

[Malone LaVeigh]

Khornet:

Didn't mean to ignore your friendly greeting in the last post, but I didn't want to seem to be responding in the same vein as to the posts impuning my character. Yes, I've been quite busy lately with a new job. You can tell the days I work at home, though.
He was right, though unhinged. State WAS full of commies. So was Hollywood.My use of the word "McCarthyite" refers to his demonization of people for their political beliefs. There may well have been commies in govt and hollywood. So what? It's supposed to be a free country. If there were commies behind every bush in those days, it might have been because communism was much more popular philosophy back then. It was before people made the distinction between European-style socialism and Stalinist communism.

[Shalako]

Demanding a UN coalition to oust Sadaam lends more credence to a "one world government" authority. No thanks. Pleading with the other countries of the world to join us and bandying about with the UN just assigns them a false importance. To me pursuit of a global coalition is barely more than a diplomatic charade and a test to see where these other countries place their chips. If they don't place them with what's good for them, then they can reap the repercussions. Too bad, so sad.

____________________
I have never burned a flag. Enough said.

[sonny]

Shalako,
To me pursuit of a global coalition is barely more than a diplomatic charade and a test to see where these other countries place their chips.

I liked that:)

[braindead0]

How do they justify a regime developing weapons of mass destruction?

By that reasoning, we'd better invade ourselves then. Not only are we constantly developing "WMD's", we have enough to kill just about every living thing on the planet..probably several times over.

Just about every culture thinks that what they believe is moral or just, is the absolute truth.

[Jackanape]

No Malone, I don't much care who sponsors what little of the television I watch. Why? Because, for the most part, all these sponsors want to do is sell me soap. If, however, the WWP ran a commercial (oy, the irony) during a show I watched I would stop watching the show, and I would write the network to tell them why I stopped watching. Just voting with my feet so to speak...

As far as the whole McCarthyism thing goes, Malone wrote:

"My use of the word "McCarthyite" refers to his demonization of people for their political beliefs. There may well have been commies in govt and hollywood. So what? It's supposed to be a free country. If there were commies behind every bush in those days, it might have been because communism was much more popular philosophy back then. It was before people made the distinction between European-style socialism and Stalinist communism."

The HUAC hearings weren't about rooting out communists because of their beliefs. It was about rooting out communists who were acting as agents for the soviet union, and engaging in acts of espionage. And now that we have the VENONA transcripts, and the KGB has openened their archives, we know that McCarthy wasn't engaged in a witch hunt after all. Turns out that Alger Hiss, and the Rosenbergs were soviet agents after all. Tuns out that there were plenty of soviet agents operating in Washington at the time. Turns out ol' tail gunner Joe was right after all.

This is a free county, and yes you're free to be a communist if you want. Membership in the communist party is not a crime. Espionage is a crime however, and McCarthy sought to root out soviet agents. What's so hard to understand about that?

Call me a McCarthyite all you like, I'll take it as a compliment.

[Khornet]

we need another Tailgunner in the Senate!

Malone, it IS apparent when you're at home. But you don't give ME ulcers...I'm a gastroenterologist.

[Drjones]

By that reasoning, we'd better invade ourselves then. Not only are we constantly developing "WMD's", we have enough to kill just about every living thing on the planet..probably several times over.

Just about every culture thinks that what they believe is moral or just, is the absolute truth.

Sorry, faulty logic.

"Sir, you have too many guns. You are a danger to society."

"Bu...but I've never committed a crime! I have a clean record!"

:rolleyes:

How you could compare Saddam's regime with America is beyond me....

[Malone LaVeigh]

Gesundheit!

As usual, there's a little truth on all sides. Those hollywood writers that got blacklisted probably weren't providing secrets to the Soviets. Commies in the State Dept is another matter.
Demanding a UN coalition to oust Sadaam lends more credence to a "one world government" authority. What we're seeing here, to some degree, is a clash between two wings of the "one world government" lobby. Bush and company want one world under US dominion. Maybe not formally, or all at once, but that is functionally where they are taking us. Unfortunately, history teaches us that empires are not good for the freedom of citizen of the empire or conquered subject.

[Sean Smith]

I'll just interject by pointing out the gigantic hypocricy and selective memory of the "peace" movement:

Proposition: “The international peace movement isn’t vastly hypocritical.”

The problem with the statement is that you have to consider who and what in recent history WASN’T considered worthy of protest by the same folks that denounce Bush as a Nazi, baby killer, etc.:

Saddam Hussein, who has invaded Iran and Kuwait, and used chemical weapons on Iraqi citizens, and sponsored international terrorism, and violated UN resolutions continuously for about 12 years;

The Communist Chinese government, which runs over its citizens with tanks;

The North Korean government, which considers it reasonable to reduce its population to actual starvation in order to develop a huge chemical, biological and nuclear arsenal aimed at Seoul, and as a hobby periodically threatens to start World War III;

The Taliban government of Afghanistan, which sponsored terrorism on a vast scale, and committed atrocities of every description against the Afghan population;

The governments of Iran, Syria, Libya, and other open sponsors of international terrorism;

The various Palestinian terrorist organizations, which consider blowing up Israeli school buses some kind of glorious resistance to oppression;

The chaotic genocidal wars that periodically take place in Africa;

President Clinton’s own bombing of Serbian cities, with attendant civilian casualties, and his abject bungling of operations in Somalia, that cost both American and Somali lives unnecessarily.

None of these were considered worthy of “massive” international protests (with admittedly overstated turnouts). Meanwhile, just the possibility of going to war against Saddam Hussein (known terrorist sponsor, two-time invader of his neighbors, violator of international law, and gasser of his own population) is protested wildly as some kind of uniquely evil Imperialist warmongering. :rolleyes:

I have no quarrel with anyone who has a conscientious, rational opposition to American foreign policy. If you have a sensible objection, bring it. I just haven't heard any.

For a small lesson in getting world support, take a look at Bill Clinton and Kosovo. I was against that war, also, but Clinton did a much better job of getting world support.

Did you protest that war? Did anybody protest that war? Since that one was alot harder to justify objectively than a war with Iraq, I would hope so. Assuming, of course, you aren't a hypocrite. Apparently, the rest of the peace movement was, because protests against the war against Serbia didn't exist. Think about it: was Serbia a state sponsor of international terrorism? Nope. Did Serbia have illicit WMD programs? Nope. Did Serbia actually host international terrorist organizations on its soil? Nope.

See a pattern? :rolleyes:

[faustulus]

Sorry, faulty logic.
Sir, you have too many guns. You are a danger to society."
"Bu...but I've never committed a crime! I have a clean record!"
How you could compare Saddam's regime with America is beyond me....



America's felony Record
Crimes against her people
1838 Trail of Tears
1942 internment of AMERICANS of Japanese descent
1945 First and only country to use nuke (2 counts)
1992 Ruby Ridge
1993 Waco massacre

[twoblink]

We will go so far as to use violence if necessory to ensure peace..

Quote from an Auzzie on CNN..

We'll use violence to IMPOSE OUR VERSION OF PEACE on you..:rolleyes:

10-ring... your little "rant" is so mild... I self-censored... There are things I want to post but probably will refrain...

:barf:

[Beorn]

Having a son of high school age, what has upet me lately is seeing kids get up out of their class rooms & protest in the name of peace.

Not in my classroom you won't!

America's felony Record Crimes against her people
1838 Trail of Tears
1942 internment of AMERICANS of Japanese descent
1945 First and only country to use nuke (2 counts)
1992 Ruby Ridge
1993 Waco massacre

Umm, have you forgotten every other Native American attrocity? Waco was a felony crime? David "I-wanna-be-Jesus-but-to-do-that-I-gotta-die-as-a-martyr" Koresh (sp?) was the one capping school kids in the back of the head, not Janet Reno (though the handling of the entire bloody affair was horrific to be certain).

The USA isn't perfect, but it is the the closest thing to it we've got. Now if we could just keep our fingers out of other pies and have no one else's fingers in ours (wishful thinking), stop being so darn Victorian and/or Puritanical in our attitudes about sexuality, morality, ethics, and gender equity, we might become a perfect nation.

But then other nations would fight simply because we'd have something they don't. War is a constant, because war is change, and the earth is in a constant state of entropic chaos. I don't like war, and I don't like Tornados. Both are destructive, and both can be very callus and indiscriminate. But one is preventable (and it ain't the one that swallows trailers like Bill Clinton swallows $1 coneys).

I love my country. I support my president. Even if I think he's going about this whole thing the wrong way. Screw diplomacy and screw massive warfare, target his @$$ from above and send covert ops in from below. But he's not first in line. Osama Bin Laden is first on the ride to Hell, then there are several Tribal Chieftains in Africa that actually have sloppy seconds in the race to Hades. Trust me, Saddam has a long wait.

If we could Michael Corleone the whole shebang, get rid of Saddam, Quaddafi, Kim, African Tribal Chieftains, all terrorists that seek to do Western Society (not just America), Osama, Tatalia, Barzini, and any other that needs "to sleep with the fishes," I'm certain that we would.

The problem is we can't. We can't and we shouldn't. We need to protect our own before we defend others. I feel for the Kurds and the Shiite Muslims in Iraq (not much, since Shiites were the ones doing most of the Terrorist activity in the 80s), but they aren't our people.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Withdraw ALL ASSISTANCE from ALL COUNTRIES in the WORLD for 5 years and put that money into our own Social Security, Retirement, Deficit, Education, and Defense. The rest of the world will BEG for us to come back and they'll personally deliver Osama's danglys on a silver platter. But we won't come back. Israel will get attacked, and like before, they'll beat up the entire Arab world single handed (Arab Israeli Tank War II anyone?). And we still won't come back. The world will fall into turmoil not seen since Pangea became the continents we know today, and still we won't show up.

Finally, when every place outside Western Society looks like the "bad spots" in Escape From New York, THEN we show up and demand a few items before we let them play our reindeer games...

When the rest of the world realizes that they need us A LOT MORE than we need them, compliance will become a breeze.

So screw France, screw Germany, and screw whoever hates us. We'll see how they like no imports, no American goods, and no tourism. We'll see how they like getting the "Bovine-Ear-Tag" VISA when they want to enter this country for business OR pleasure.

All it would take is 5 years, if even that.

Now wouldn't that be nice? Now, could anyone direct me to the voting booth, I think there's some changes that need to be enacted come 2004...:)

[jmbg29]

Nice substantive reply, just like the rest of your replies. For a small lesson in getting world support, take a look at Bill Clinton and Kosovo. I was against that war, also, but Clinton did a much better job of getting world support. Also, see GHWB and a little thing called "Desert Storm." Believe it or not, there have been skillful politicians in the past who understood diplomacy.So glad you brought up Gulf war one. Baiting you in is so much fun! Go back and look at the record. The same moaners and groaners made the same trouble, right up to the last minute. As soon as they were certain which way the wind was to blow, they jumped on board.How long did it take to turn the northern and southern sections of the country into NFZs? Five minutes or ten?The question was not about establishment of the zones. It was about maintaining them. Thanks for paying attention.:rolleyes: If some non-combantants did get killed that way, it would be a lot harder for Iraq to get sympathy. How did those orphans get in those military trucks, anyway?What an excellent question! How come not one of the peaceniks ever asked that when we killed 500 women and children that Saddam put in an underground Command and Control complex? Perhaps they didn't ask because they already knew the answer, and they didn't wish to embarrass an exalted socialist dictator. You folks have so few of them left to worship. Hell, you guys don't even have that Sandy Neesta fella to adore anymore. heh heh heh...;)Well, you couldn't be more wrong. Inspectors are to be allowed access to any facilities thay think might be used for production, storage, or deployment of WMD. As far as 'my buddy" is concerned, you have a lot more in common with him than do I.Wrong again Malone! Saddam was to present all of the outlawed gear and it was to be destroyed. The inspectors are not there for a game of Three Card Monty. This isn't a child's game of hide and seek.

So far, the inspectors have found chemical warheads, missiles, drones, and yes, even anthrax, all of which are prohibited. Upon finding the very first object that was prohibited, Saddam's fate was sealed. End of story.If you're not going to read my posts, why should I bother replying????Oh, I read it - through tears of laughter - I especially liked the suggestion that somehow Saddam was making actual money from smuggling oil. Allow me to clue you in. He does the smuggling for fun. He does it because he knows that no matter what he does, he can count on people like you to look the other way.My whole point in this is that anyone could have thought of these and a lot more tactics that fall far short of a war and occupation. Obviously the Bush admin has no interest in an alternative solution.I have little doubt that Ms. Rice and her staff thought of them. I have even less doubt that she thought even less of them than I did.

[Jackanape]

The Hollywood screen writers that got blacklisted may or may not have been engaging in acts of espionage. We don't know, as a case was never built. What we do know about them is that they were communist party members, which in and of itself is not a crime. They refused to testify in HUAC proceedings by taking the fifth. As far as a criminal investigation went, that was it. None of the Hollywood ten were ever charged or convicted of anything. It wasn't the government that enforced the blacklist, it was the film industry. The folks in charge of the studios determined that having an avowed communist on the payroll was bad for business (remember, this was the 50's). As such, the studios exercised their right not to employ communists, so as not to affect their bottom line. Kind of like when Hertz rent a car fired O.J. Simpson as a spokesman after he was charged with murder. These companies didn't want to be associated with people who could negatively affect their business. The horror... These folks still had the right to be members of the communist party, and the film industry had the right to protect their financial intrests. Where's the problem?

Bringing it back to the anti war crowd, why isn't the anti war crowd letting France have it for their unilateral troop deployment in Ivory Coast? No blood for Coffee and Cocoa! Why does France get a pass, and America is the great Satan? Let's get consistent here!

[faustulus]

Umm, have you forgotten every other Native American attrocity? Waco was a felony crime? David "I-wanna-be-Jesus-but-to-do-that-I-gotta-die-as-a-martyr" Koresh (sp?) was the one capping school kids in the back of the head, not Janet Reno (though the handling of the entire bloody affair was horrific to be certain).

No wasn't forgetting just didn't have time, effort or stomach to list them all. :(

I've seen the warrents in the Koresh case. The kids suffocated. What the government did was in essense attack a man with religous views they considered dangerous. At the very least it could have been handled better. Similar to this situation. The ATF went to war without first exhausting the alternatives.

I don't like Saddam, he is evil and deserves to be deposed. But where do we stop? There are a heck of a lot of hot spots in the world with corrupt and evil dictators. We are going to be very busy making the world over in our image.

[Sergeant Bob]

Why Iraq? What about Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc,?
This is just a shot across the bow for some of the other tin pot dictators in the world.
As for Malone saying he didn't support Monica's War (aka Albright's Folly), I have read his statements of being against that action before. I remembered it because it was one of the few times I've ever agreed with him.

[Shweboner]

Why Iraq? What about Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc,?

Becasue the diplomatic efforts with Iraq have just about been exhausted... and for NK they are still in the early stages of dealing with the escalation.

Not to mention that Iraq has fired on US planes several times in recent months. IN the past, Saddam has murdered hundreds of thousands of his on people without reason (using WMDs), Invaded neighboring countries, defied UN resolutions for 10 years and has threatened the US...

So, of these things, which of them do you condone? How do you not see this guy as a threat to US interests?
And what do You propose to end the situation, besides war?


~Brian

[jmbg29]

We are going to be very busy making the world over in our image.Better to crawl in a hole and hide, eh?

[Sergeant Bob]

Shweboner
Why Iraq? What about Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc,?
Just a rhetorical question, see next line...
This is just a shot across the bow for some of the other tin pot dictators in the world.
Good answer though, but don't forget openly supporting Palestinian terrorists ($25,000 per bomber) and plotting to kill a former American President.

[Pendragon]

NK is posturing because they want to be a player. They want aid, they want respect, etc. They are very open about their weapons and what they are willing to do.

Iraq is secretive and evasive about their weapons. SH wants people to get off his back so he can get down to business.

The situations are very dissimilar.

[jimpeel]

We are told that we should give time for the inspections to work but noone has any idea of how long that is. If we allow the inspections to continue for 12 months, but Saddam finishes developing a nuke in 10 months, he would not, IMHO, hestiate to use it on Tel Aviv. Do we wait for that time?

If he develops a nuke, and sends it to the edge of America's territorial waters on a freighter, and places it on a fast boat inbound to NY harbor; could we stop it before it was detonated near shore? Do we want to wait for that time?

This is NOT a police action. It is a continuation of the war that was suspended in 1991. We are technically still at war pursuant to the declaration of the cessation of hostilities from 1991. We have every right to continue the war if he fails to adhere to the provisos codified within that document.

America's felony Record Crimes against her people

...

1945 First and only country to use nuke (2 counts)

Apparently, you have yet to come to the realization that the Japanese were not "Her" people.

[CZ-75]

Apparently, you have yet to come to the realization that the Japanese were not "Her" people.

Doe that include the ones who were US citizens too?

I seem to remember that they locked up a good number of US citizens, not just Japanese nationals/resident aliens.

[Zander]

It was before people made the distinction between European-style socialism and Stalinist communism.The similarities are more prominent than the differences.

Socialism is just as much a failure as was communism. Both systems define their subjects as being of less worth than the tyrants and totalitarians who dominate them and run such "governments".

No human being of conscience can support such madness, even if he is willing to ignore the prominent and despicable history associated with it.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Malone LaVeigh:
For a small lesson in getting world support, take a look at Bill Clinton and Kosovo. I was against that war, also, but Clinton did a much better job of getting world support.

Could you tell us the U.N. Resolution that Clinton used to bomb Kosovo?

You can't, because Clinton never even attempted to go to the U.N. because Russia would have vetoed it. Clinton went into Kosovo with NATO authority and over France's objections. He had virtually no more support from the world than President Bush has now!

It's rather disingenuous and hypocritical for all of the Democrats in the Congress who voted overwhelmingly for Clinton's action in Kosovo to be demanding that President Bush MUST have U.N. authority to invade Iraq. And yes, a few Republicans objected to Clinton's action in Kosovo but all Republican Senators, and most Republican Congress members, gave him their support.

[faustulus]

jmbg29,

Better to crawl in a hole and hide, eh?

Nah, I will be one of the first they kill. You my friend will be the one who has to live with it, and it won't be pleasant.

jimpeel,

If he develops a nuke, and sends it to the edge of America's territorial waters on a freighter, and places it on a fast boat inbound to NY harbor; could we stop it before it was detonated near shore? Do we want to wait for that time?

Short answer yes. If someone nukes this country odds are it will be China, in the extension of a battle for Twian, N. Korea, just because Lil Kim is crazy, or a terrorist who got the nukes from NK. Remember NK has been caught in the past selling weapons to suspected terrorist organizations of course there is always Georgia, which cannot account for all of its Soviet era nukes and refuses to let the Russian scientists in to check on them.

We are technically still at war
Technically we never were at war. Congress never passed such a declaration.

I am much more afraid of India and Pakistan with nukes than I am with Iraq. In fact in recent weeks even Bush has backed off his nukes assertion. Now it is mostly chemical and biological, although chemical is really more likely.

And you are right I shouldn't have put "her" in there, my mistake.

[jmbg29]

Nah, I will be one of the first they kill. You my friend will be the one who has to live with it, and it won't be pleasant.Nah, if you have the capacity to defend yourself from these barbarians, and you choose not to, I'll probably just laugh derisively.

Then, before one can blink, I will have moved on.

[jmbg29]

Technically we never were at war. Congress never passed such a declaration.Before you respond with the tired "The War Powers Act is unconstitutional" bit, please cite the court case (and the relevant links) that found it so. :rolleyes:

A similar "House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq" was passed in January of 1991.

jimpeel is 100% correct in asserting that Saddam has been in violation of the conditions for the continued cessation of hostilities since the Spring of 1991; when he refused to meet the 60 day disarmament deadline after the suspension of hostilities.



10 October 2002

House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq
House of Representatives approves resolution October 10

Following is the text of House Joint Resolution 114, "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," approved in the House of Representatives October 10, by a vote of 296 to 133: emphasis added

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President 'to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President 'to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and 'constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to 'work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to 'work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that 'the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to —

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to —

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that —

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

[jimpeel]

That portion of the comment was on the nuking of Nagasaki and Hirosima, not Manzanar.

Your bad.

[jimpeel]

For a small lesson in getting world support, take a look at Bill Clinton and Kosovo. I was against that war, also, but Clinton did a much better job of getting world support.Yes, your (P)resident lawbreaker did an excellent job; the first of which was to violate the NATO Charter. You may read same at: http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

From the Charter Preamble:They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security.

For the first time in its 50 year history, NATO was used as an aggressor force in direct opposition to its founding principles that it is strictly a defensive force.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Kosovo was not a signatory to the NATO Charter. Neither was Croatia, Serbia, or Yugoslavia as a whole. Kosovo was a portion of Yugoslavia, just as Serbia and Croatia were. The Balkans war was an internal conflict of, by, and within Yugoslavia. Clinton used NATO as an aggressor force to settle a civil war taking place wholly within the borders of a sovereign nation.

Yugoslavia did not attack any signatory nation to the NATO Charter.

Regardless of the support Clinton gained, he once again broke the law; and on the most grand international scale he could.

Based on Clinton's unlawful use of NATO, and the precedent it set, NATO is now being touted as necessary to the settling of the disputes in the Arabic world as well.

I don't know about anyone else here but I certainly don't subscribe to having not one, but two, aggressor world armies -- NATO and the UN.

[faustulus]

Before you respond with the tired "The War Powers Act is unconstitutional" bit, please cite the court case (and the relevant links) that found it so.

Never said it was. The SCOUS passed turned down three cases that I know of to hear arguements on the act. It always seemed a useless act and more about congress feeling like it was doing something. Congress has ultimate control over the war machine with the purse strings.
I never said his ascertion wasn't correct, only that there was no formal declaration of war.

[jimpeel]

The War Powers Act was simply one more example of the Congress ceding its powers to a third entity. There are no provisions in the Constitution for the Congress to do so but they do it all of the time.

They ceded the power to coin money to the Federal Reserve.

They ceded the power to glean tarriffs to the WTO.

They ceded the power to make law to the Executive department through the Presidential Executive Order. Remember the famous Begala quote "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Cool."

They ceded the power to declare war to the Executive department.

Worst of all, they ceded the power to create laws within the trilateral structure of our Republican form of government to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the EPA and other departments.

[buzz_knox]

The only way I proved your point is if there has been a war in Iraq in the last 12 years I am unaware of. See there hasn't been and he still doesn't have anything other than what he had BEFORE the Gulf War.

Actually, there have been several conflicts in Iraq, which were put down with brutal force. The attempted coup in 1995 that Clinton pulled his support for at the last minute comes to mind.

As for Saddam not having anything he didn't have before, you're joking right? Or did you forget about the El Samoud 2 missles which violate the cease fire agreements (according to the UN inspectors, not the US) and which were fairly recently developed? Or have you also rejected the pedophile Scott Ritter's initial testimony in 1998 that Saddam retained WMDs at that time, and his programs for developing said items was continuing?

As for Congress ceding authority, please remember that the Constitution has a clause specifically authorizing Congress to pass such laws as are necessary to the implementation of the Constiutition. While many of the actions taken by Congress' agents are improper, there is nothing unconstitutional per se with granting agencies the authority to carry out Congress' will. That is, in fact, precisely what the framers anticipated.

[Jackanape]

More evidence that the "anti war movement" is actually an anti Capitalist movement. This morening a group of about 300 protestors converged in the financial district of San Francisco at 6:30 AM. Their goal, to shut down the Pacific Stock exchange. Around 60 were arrested at last count, many were resisting arrest as they were dragged away from the entrance to the Pacific Exchange. The group of protestors blocked commuter traffic, denied people access to their place of business, and generally made a mess of things. Now, if your goal is to try to stop a war, why are you trying to shut down the Pacific Exchange? Why not go protest at a recruitment center, or a military base? Could it be that the upcoming war is a good excuse to attack the institutions that these protestors hate the most? You know, financial institutions. Again, actions speak louder than words, and judging by their actions I'd say they hated Capitalism more than they hate war.

I had to wade through this mob on my way to work this morning. These fools actually seemed shocked that people such as myself were upset with their little tantrum. Oh well, such antics only succeed in giving the left more rope with which to hang themselves. I guess some good does come out of these protests after all...

[DRC]

Any relation to Anton? Just out of curiosity.

Anyway and not trying to beat a dead horse but I found some things intresting. If I may:

"1) Get the rest of the world community on your side instead of opposing you."

As has already been said there will never come a time that the entire world community will come together fully. The UN is a debating forum and not as conducive to unity as one would hope it would or could be. But we do have the majority of the world community backing us on this, some that don't will once action is taken and those that never will have too much intrest in the countries in question. Take France for instance. They are against because they have a failed economy and $230 billion in oil reciepts in Iraq. If they cannot aquire concessions with a new controling faction then their country will be the epitome of bancrupt. France has a viable reason for opposing the war but it does center around them and them alone.

2) Get consensus to use military power to disarm Saddam. The way to get that consensus would be to credibly convince the rest of the world that military doesn't mean invasion and occupation.

You spoken of attending anti-war rallies and some pretty big ones as of late, correct? Getting a concensus would still require military action and would be a declaration of war so I'm confused.

3) Turn the entire country into a "no-fly" zone. Right now there are areas inside the existing no-fly zones, mostly in the Kurdish north, that are essentially autonomous.

To accomplish this would mean a build up of the military and more frequent occupation of these areas which could and probably would be consider a decalration of war by the opposing regime. Remembering that if one side feels threaten and takes an act as a declaration of war it is in effect war whether it's called that or not (semantics don't play in this field) so again I'm confused.

"4) Turn the entire country into a "no-crawl" zone. Any military movements detected by any of our reconnaisance tools would be instantly destroyed."

Military and missile deployment is a declaration of war, although intended to stop impending pprogression of unsanctioned acts and or acts of aggression. These acts would also be seen as acts of aggression against us and in response we would declare war. Anti-war or war?

"5) Let the inspectors do their job. If the Iraqis refused entrance to any facility, it would be destroyed."

Not to reiterate too much but ditto to the afore mentioned. These acts taken against Iraq on Iraqi soil is a declaration of war, plus because of a joint resolution signed into effect in congress giving the decission for the use of force if necessary to the President a declaration of war is already in effect.

"6) In concert with 3 and 4 above, enforce effective sanctions. Use the oil-for-food receipts to distribute humanitarian goods to the population through the UN. Get them used to self-rule without Saddam in places other than the Kurdish territory."

This has and is already being done and it has in fact failed to get the results originally sought after. People are still starving while the controling factions are being well fed and financed. These sanctions and aid work like a colander. There are too many holes in them to be an effective vessel for water

"7) Crack down on oil smuggling so Saddam couldn't finance his weapons aquisition ambitions."

The sad part about that is that Saddam is financing his weapons aquisition ambitions by building and selling weapons to the highest bidder as well. He has weapons that are not disallowed by the UN resolutions that he also manyfactures and sells indiscriminantly to those with the money. Oil is just one financing venue being used by Saddam it is simply his only vissible means of support.

"8) Saddam's regime is administered by a small and shrinking circle of trusted officials. It may be impossible to get Saddam, but these characters have to move about to do the business of government. I would start picking them off one at a time, either by bribery or covert opps. The government could stand very little of this before it would collapse, or some insider would do the job for us. Right now, the kind of pressure we are putting on is guaranteed to sustain the loyalty of those insiders, because they know they have everything to lose if Saddam goes. I would let it be known that we have no prejudice against any post-Saddam government that wants to belong to the community of nations."

Saddam is between a rock and a hard place I agree, but he has too much undisclosed support to permamntly remove him if left to his own devices I'm afraid. I agree that covert opps would be a good idea. I'm all for bringing back Zombie Squads and Splinter Cells and would even be willing to volunteer for training in them, but then the question becomes; How many? How many covert opps would be needed to carry out this task and if discovered it would again be a declaration of war? Not to mention covert opps go in with little or no support sense they have to move quietly and unseen so if they get into trouble it's already too late for them.

"Understand in all the above, by "we" I mean an international coalition, not the US."

The international coalition is all countries in support of an action. Those outside of the coalitions agreement either abstain or obstruct but in any event are in effect removing themselves from the coalition willingly, based on principle or constituency necessity/popularity of said country.

"Much of the above could have been done long ago, but the US government, especially the first Bush admin, didn't want Saddam deposed. The US military was ordered to allow flights and troop movements following GW I so Saddam could crush Kurdish and Shi'ite uprisings. Later the Clinton admin pulled the rug out from under another Kurdish uprising."

Actually GW I's mission was to liberate Kuwait which was accomplished, as to the rest of it "that should be their problem to deal with not ours." (to coin a phrase used in this thread.) was the attitude taken by the concensus of supporters for that particular war. As you said "Get consensus to use military power to disarm Saddam." GW I only had the concensus to liberate Kuwait. After that the course he took was to sit back and let the chips fall where they might. I didn't agree with that stance either but it was political in nature.

Anyway just my thoughts,

Take care,

DRC

[Jackanape]

Hoo Boy, it looks like we're in for more well thought out social protest tomorrow. At least the headline is more accurate as to what they're actually protesting:

Anarchists to take part in S.F. march
They say they're demonstrating against evils of capitalism

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/14/BA66439.DTL

Hope the link works... Anarchists, how fashionable... Just another of the many flavors of anti capitalists that comprise the so called "peace movement". Let's see, three protests, $50,000 worth of damage... And people take them seriously, why?

[jmbg29]

I never said his ascertion wasn't correct, only that there was no formal declaration of war.10 October 2002

House Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq
House of Representatives approves resolution October 10

Following is the text of House Joint Resolution 114, "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," approved in the House of Representatives October 10, by a vote of 296 to 133: emphasis added

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2002
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[JoeSF]

In San Francisco the marchers describe thenselves on the news as against War and Capitalism.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Hoo, boy, I thought this thread had died a long time ago. Too much to catch up on...

So glad you brought up Gulf war one. Baiting you in is so much fun! Go back and look at the record. The same moaners and groaners made the same trouble, right up to the last minute. As soon as they were certain which way the wind was to blow, they jumped on board. Don't see too many jumping on board just now. I've been thinking the same way as you for some time, sooner or later, the rest of the world's leaders would be coerced along, but it hasn't happened. Bush's bungling of this is begining to look like the biggest foreign miscalculation since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
The question was not about establishment of the zones. It was about maintaining them. Thanks for paying attention.You're right, my mistake. To answer your question: It wouldn't take long.
What an excellent question! How come not one of the peaceniks ever asked that when we killed 500 women and children that Saddam put in an underground Command and Control complex?If you can't see the difference between the hypothetical case of orphans in a military convoy and people seeking shelter in a bunker in the middle of a highly populated metropolitan area, I can't help you much. Sure makes the job easier for the propaganda writers, though.
Wrong again Malone! Saddam was to present all of the outlawed gear and it was to be destroyed...And how was Iraq supposed to prove a negative? Were the inspectors going to take Saddam's word for it? They're called "inspectors" for a reason.
Yes, your (P)resident lawbreaker did an excellent job; the first of which was to violate the NATO Charter.My president? Were you a citizen of a different country at the time?
Now, if your goal is to try to stop a war, why are you trying to shut down the Pacific Exchange?The leader of the protest is the retired former president of the Pacific Stock Exchange. Some anti-capitalist.
As has already been said there will never come a time that the entire world community will come together fully.OK, but we coiuld do a lot better than Britian and Spain.
Take France for instance. They are against because they have a failed economy and $230 billion in oil reciepts in Iraq.Their motives don't have to be pristine for Bush's to be wrong.
You spoken of attending anti-war rallies and some pretty big ones as of late, correct? Getting a concensus would still require military action and would be a declaration of war so I'm confused.I'm against the current war plans. Specifically, I'm against bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq. That doesn't mean all solutions that include military options are unthinkable. Why is that confusing?
To accomplish this would mean a build up of the military and more frequent occupation of these areas which could and probably would be consider a decalration of war by the opposing regime.Roughly half of the country is already in a NFZ (illegal, BTW). How much more buildup would it take to deny the skies to the Iraqi military? In the north, at least, the NFZ has caused a more or less autonomous Kurdish region to develop. They spend their oil-for-food dollars there as they see fit and the people are a lot better off than the rest of Iraq. I'm just proposing extending this zone to the rest of the country. Yes, it would mean military action. It would be nice if the rest of the world community would trust our leadership to use such action.
Military and missile deployment is a declaration of war, although intended to stop impending pprogression of unsanctioned acts and or acts of aggression. These acts would also be seen as acts of aggression against us and in response we would declare war. Anti-war or war?(Scratching my head...) I'm not sure what you mean in 4 or 5.

This has and is already being done and it has in fact failed to get the results originally sought after. People are still starving while the controling factions are being well fed and financed.Well, that's why I'm not advocating sanctions by themselves. I said "effective."
The sad part about that is that Saddam is financing his weapons aquisition ambitions by building and selling weapons to the highest bidder as well.If this is true, effective sanctions would stop it.
Actually GW I's mission was to liberate Kuwait which was accomplished, as to the rest of it "that should be their problem to deal with not ours." And no one's given Bush II the mission to do any more, either. Are you for unilateral action or against? Because it looks like the US is not going to be given the sanction to invade Iraq.

[fallingblock]

While G.W. may want U.N. approval, for the sake of Tony's exposed posterior,...thankfully he doesn't NEED it!:D

I hope this continuation of the Gulf War turns out as well as it has the potential to, and not the reverse:rolleyes:

[Jackanape]

Malone wrote:

"The leader of the protest is the retired former president of the Pacific Stock Exchange. Some anti-capitalist. "

This misguided individual was in fact the president of the Pacific Exchange. His motives? Guilt, mental illness, just plain old being a baby boomer in S.F., who can say? I can only judge him by his action however. Now, what nobody has been able to successfully explain is why protest financial institutions to protest the war? Especially when there is a military recruitment center about eight blocks from the Pacific Exchange... could it be that they're not actually all that worked up about war?

The former president of the protest was the former president of the Pacific Exchange , but the rank and file of the protestors were the glassy eyed dolts that sell revolutionary worker at 24th and Mission BART station every Saturday. The WWP, and ANSWER fliers and signs were out in force Friday morning. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

[Malone LaVeigh]

The former prez of the PSE that we're talking about sees some connection there, and he knows more about how the stock market works than I do. So who am I to argue? For my part, I don't know why he's protesting there. It seems to me the stock market has been the most effective protest organization we've got. Every time it looks like we're getting closer to war, the major indexes dive like a submarine.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Malone LaVeigh:
There is near zero support for the core beliefs of the Workers World Party among the anti-war movement. Those folks just happen to be good organizers.

But you will always see some of them at any big anti-government action. I hope people don't judge us all by them.

I hear that the KKK is going to hold a rally in support of the First Admendment at the Masters Golf Tournament in Augusta, Georgia this year. Are all of you anti-war advocates going to attend? With all of this talk from the left about conservatives trying to stiffle your free speech rights regarding the war, I would think it imperative that you and your fellow anti-war types attend. The KKK's pretty good at organization too!

After all, you'll just be standing up for the First Admendment, not giving legitimacy to the KKK. You won't even have to wear white robes and hats if you don't want too!

[Drjones]

I hear that the KKK is going to hold a rally in support of the First Admendment at the Masters Golf Tournament in Augusta, Georgia this year. Are all of you anti-war advocates going to attend? With all of this talk from the left about conservatives trying to stiffle your free speech rights regarding the war, I would think it imperative that you and your fellow anti-war types attend. The KKK's pretty good at organization too!

After all, you'll just be standing up for the First Admendment, not giving legitimacy to the KKK. You won't even have to wear white robes and hats if you don't want too!

Let's chip in and buy Malone a ticket!

You game Malone?

[faustulus]

jmbg29

Jimpeel originally said:
This is NOT a police action. It is a continuation of the war that was suspended in 1991. We are technically still at war pursuant to the declaration of the cessation of hostilities from 1991.

Then Faustulus said:
Technically we never were at war. Congress never passed such a declaration.

Then jmbg29 quoted a 2002 house resolution not once but twice. A RESOLUTION PASSED ELEVEN YEARS AFTER THE "WAR" THE OTHER TWO MEMBERS WERE DISCUSSING!!

Jimpeel,
I agree with your assesemt, congress has delegated too much of its power to other sources and have skirted the spirit of the constitution by streching the elastic clause to mindnumbing lengths.

buzz_knox,
I am sure you are correct, I mistated my assertion, I was trying to say Iraq had not had any hostilies toward other nations. God only knows the horrors Saddam has inflicted on his own people. The missles, while new are a delivery system, by themselves they are useless, I was speaking generally about WMD. I believe Saddam has them, but I don't think he has had the opportunity to develop them as much as Bush is saying. Again I am not saying he isn't a problem, just not a significant threat as he is being billed as.

Cactus,
The Augusta protests have nothing to do with the first amendment. No one has said they don't have a right not to include who they want. The government isn't even involved.

[Malone LaVeigh]

I hear that the KKK is going to hold a rally in support of the First Admendment at the Masters Golf Tournament in Augusta, Georgia this year. Are all of you anti-war advocates going to attend? With all of this talk from the left about conservatives trying to stiffle your free speech rights regarding the war, I would think it imperative that you and your fellow anti-war types attend. The KKK's pretty good at organization too! You obviously know very little about organizing. The KKK is pretty awful.

ANSWER, on the other hand, has organized marches of 100s of thousands protesting the war, with very little emphasis on their agenda. The comparison is really quite absurd if you think about it.

[fallingblock]

" The KKK is pretty awful."

I cannot find fault with that statement.
:D

[Drjones]

Yes, the KKK may be bad, but ANSWER is probably worse.

Despite your two-step around the question, it still remains, Malone:

Would you attend a rally for any cause sponsored by the KKK?

[Malone LaVeigh]

Well, I just disagree over which is worse. I grew up with the Klan. There's no group in this country more despicable. When I was growing up in the South, these animals were running around killing people for working for basic human rights. I also know a few people that probably aren't too far off of ANSWER. There's no comparison. If you read the articles posted a while ago, you would know that ANSWER, while started by and dominated by the World Worker's Party (or whatever their name is) also includes other anti-war activists. It's a coalition of groups, some of which I agree, others not.

No one from ANSWER has ever killed anyone, that I know of. Of course, I wouldn't attend a rally sponsored by terrorists. Like I said, the comparison is absurd.

[jmbg29]

Technically we never were at war. Congress never passed such a declaration.Faustulus did indeed say that. As usual, Faustulus was wrong.Then jmbg29 quoted a 2002 house resolution not once but twice. A RESOLUTION PASSED ELEVEN YEARS AFTER THE "WAR" THE OTHER TWO MEMBERS WERE DISCUSSING!!And in both cases I reminded you, that congress passed this motion in 1991. They even refer to it in the text of the October 2002 resolution. In both cases, you ignored it.

The moment the first shot was fired in Gulf War I (firing upon enemy forces being an act of war) we were at war. To date, Saddam has not complied with the ceasefire agreement.



Persian Gulf Resolution

"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution"

January 12, 1991

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolution 678.

Whereas the Government of Iraq without provocation invaded and occupied the territory of Kuwait on August 2, 1990; and

Whereas both the House of Representatives (in HJ Res. 658 of the 101st Congress) and the Senate (in S Con Res 147 of the 101st Congress) have condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and declared their support for international action to reverse Iraq's aggression; and

Whereas, Iraq's conventional, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs and its demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to world peace; and

Whereas the international community has demanded that Iraq withdraw unconditionally and immediately from Kuwait and that Kuwait's independence and legitimate government be restored; and

Whereas the U.N. Security Council repeatedly affirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in response to armed attack by Iraq against Kuwait in accordance with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter; and

Whereas, in the absence of full compliance by Iraq with its resolutions, the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 678 has authorized member states of the United Nations to use all necessary means, after January 15, 1991, to uphold and implement all relevant Security Council resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; and

Whereas Iraq has persisted in its illegal occupation of, and brutal aggression against, Kuwait: Now, therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title. This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution."

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) AUTHORIZATION. -- The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.

(b) REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION THAT USE OF MILITARY FORCE IS NECESSARY. -- Before exercising the authority granted in subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that --

(1) the United States has used all appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with the United Nations Security Council resolutions cited in subsection (a); and

(2) that those efforts have not been successful in obtaining such compliance.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Section 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to Iraq's aggression.



(The House approved the resolution on January 12, 1991 by a vote of 250-183. The Senate approved it by a vote of 52-47.)

[jmbg29]

If you can't see the difference between the hypothetical case of orphans in a military convoy and people seeking shelter in a bunker in the middle of a highly populated metropolitan area, I can't help you much. Sure makes the job easier for the propaganda writers, though.There is no difference other than that one of the examples is hypothetical.

The hypothetical case involves a military convoy. Under the rules governing warfare, military convoys are legitimate targets.

In the real case, we attacked a hardened command and control bunker. Under the rules that govern warfare, it is/was a legitimate target.

In both cases, it is a violation of the rules governing warfare - and all that is holy BTW - to purposefully place civilians/refugees/P.O.W.s/etc. inside legitimate targets. Saddam placed those people in that command and control facility. He is doing the same thing in other targets as we speak. Sometimes he does it with the aid of folks that call themselves human shields. It looks to me like with their help, and your not inconsiderable effort, Saddam gets to continue his slaughter.

Of course in the world of moral relativism, all acts/situations are equal, with the important proviso that HATE AMERICA FIRST supercedes all.


Right Malone?

Sandi who? ;)

[XLMiguel]

Interesting point made on one of the Sunday morning pundit shows regarding 'containment'. It seems that the policy of containig Saddam, that so many of the anti-war folks advoce kills more people annually that the `91 war did. IIRC, given that Saddam is using his oil money for feeding his war machine rather than buying teh food & meds per the UN agreement, the number of Iraqis dying annually from malnutrition or disease is at leasst equal to the Iraqi war casualties from Desert Storm. Three fifths of those victims ARE CHILDREN. I don't recall his source (might have even been the UN itsdamnself), but it was not an opinion.

I wonder why this fact escapes the anti-war dweebs??

[buzz_knox]

The missles, while new are a delivery system, by themselves they are useless, I was speaking generally about WMD.

The cease fire agreements covered weapons with a range greater than 93 miles. The missiles are thus prohibited weapons, whether they carry nukes, gas, or HE. Saddam's is in breach, regardless of the particular payload, simply by having them, let alone developing and producing them.

[Gary H]

Take a look at their signs. They just marched with a bunch of anti-U.S. protestors in San Francisco.

http://protestwarrior.com/

example:
http://www.protestwarrior.com/images/protest_gallery/us/images/0025.jpg
http://www.protestwarrior.com/images/protest_gallery/us/images/0024.jpg

[DRC]

Please understand that I do tend to disagree with the terms being used to describe persons such as yourself here but not with the content. You do have a pretty good grasp of what you're using to define your actions and I'm not trying to change your mind but am rather putting the rest of the pieces of the puzzle in place before one calls a picture of Cloiseniase flower fields a picture of the Eiffel Tower.

As has already been said there will never come a time that the entire world community will come together fully.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"OK, but we coiuld do a lot better than Britian and Spain."

As to Unilateral support we have more support than just Spain and Britain. Those not backing us are the minority (France, Germany, Belgium and Russia) At last count I believe there were 146 countries on board thus far. I don't consider that unilateral nor do I think that any of the countries involved in the UN backing us will fall to the will of a veto by those opposing this action. It's not in their best intrest to do so thus rendering the UN as irrelivent and ineffective as it has always been.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take France for instance. They are against because they have a failed economy and $230 billion in oil reciepts in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Their motives don't have to be pristine for Bush's to be wrong."

The intresting thing is that those in position to help establish a new government in Iraq once Saddam is removed have already said that they will not honor the oil contracts of those countries that oppose the liberation of Iraq. It will be intresting to see what France says next and to see what they do as we get closer to victory. If France or Russia sways (and they will have no choice due to the necessity of those oil reciepts for their countries) everyone else will fall in rank and file. As to Bush being wrong, wrong about what? Saddam has violated all UN resolutions for the last 15 years. That's a fact not an assumption. Plus here's some good reading for you if your opposition is for connections between Iraq and 9/11 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

Enjoy.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You spoken of attending anti-war rallies and some pretty big ones as of late, correct? Getting a concensus would still require military action and would be a declaration of war so I'm confused.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'm against the current war plans. Specifically, I'm against bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq. That doesn't mean all solutions that include military options are unthinkable. Why is that confusing?"

You're against what you propose. It's confusing because you don't want military action but everything you've proposed requires military action which is a declaration of war, but you protest war so Anti war or War?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To accomplish this would mean a build up of the military and more frequent occupation of these areas which could and probably would be consider a decalration of war by the opposing regime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Roughly half of the country is already in a NFZ (illegal, BTW). How much more buildup would it take to deny the skies to the Iraqi military? In the north, at least, the NFZ has caused a more or less autonomous Kurdish region to develop. They spend their oil-for-food dollars there as they see fit and the people are a lot better off than the rest of Iraq. I'm just proposing extending this zone to the rest of the country. Yes, it would mean military action. It would be nice if the rest of the world community would trust our leadership to use such action."

I'll answer your question with a question. How much more military build up will it take before it's seen as an act of aggression and war is declared on the Iraqi side? By backing the Iraqi regime into a corner they're left with no other alternative than to come out fighting if they wish to remain in power. The Kurds are doing well because they aren't oppressing their people and using the monetary aid for what it was intended and it's working. The money never gets past Saddam and his intentions. I too wish the world community would trust our leadership but again it's strange to hear that coming from one such as yourself.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military and missile deployment is a declaration of war, although intended to stop impending pprogression of unsanctioned acts and or acts of aggression. These acts would also be seen as acts of aggression against us and in response we would declare war. Anti-war or war?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"(Scratching my head...) I'm not sure what you mean in 4 or 5."

If we patrol and something not allowed happens and we take action it's a declaration of war. Not to be repetitve but what you propose is a declaration of war. So the confusion comes in when I scratch my head and think "For a guy who's against war, Malone sure wants to do a lot of things that will send straight into what he is vehemently against."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has and is already being done and it has in fact failed to get the results originally sought after. People are still starving while the controling factions are being well fed and financed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Well, that's why I'm not advocating sanctions by themselves. I said "effective."

Define.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sad part about that is that Saddam is financing his weapons aquisition ambitions by building and selling weapons to the highest bidder as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If this is true, effective sanctions would stop it."

Define "effective" since none of the other effecticve santions called for have worked? Plus if you squeeze tighter tensions sore even more pushing us closer to war. Anti war or war? Which do you chose? You can't do what you're proposing without pushing us closer to war, therefore you seem to be saying you want it both ways and unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Trust me, I wish it did and if it could I would agree with you 100%

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually GW I's mission was to liberate Kuwait which was accomplished, as to the rest of it "that should be their problem to deal with not ours."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"And no one's given Bush II the mission to do any more, either. Are you for unilateral action or against? Because it looks like the US is not going to be given the sanction to invade Iraq."

The intresting about your question and statement is this; Bush has been given the green light already to go after NK we're just nit picking over Iraq right now. It won't be a unilarteral war. Just because five countries oppose our actions does not make it unilateral by a long shot. What I'm for is getting the job done with or without the backing of the UN. We don't need the permission of the UN and never have, but we want to be diplomatic and try to include all that will support us but the UN is a debating forum and not conducive to progress.

I hope that cleared some things up for you.

Take care,

DRC

[Malone LaVeigh]

In the real case, we attacked a hardened command and control bunker. Under the rules that govern warfare, it is/was a legitimate target.This required some research. Unfortunately, all of the internet sites I found were biased one way or the other. It seems to me that we don't have the information to make an intelligent statement on this. The US government is probably marginally more trustworthy than Saddam, but either would have motive to lie. It's entirely possible that the truth is somewhere in the middle. So, I, for one, will refrain from sounding like a fool.

My point, however, had nothing to do with whether either case would be just. It was that Saddam would have a much harder time making use of the hypothetical case for propaganda purposes.
As to Unilateral support we have more support than just Spain and Britain. Those not backing us are the minority (France, Germany, Belgium and Russia) At last count I believe there were 146 countries on board thus far.You're comparing opposition on the security council with worldwide support. I don't have time to look this up, so will assume you are correct that 146 governments are "on board." Britian and Italy will stay on board if their governments don't collapse over thye issue. The vast majorities, usually over 3/4 in almost every country is against us. I would also question what's meant by "on board." There are a lot of countries that support action with UN approval.
As to Bush being wrong, wrong about what? I thought for a while over what word to use there. I meant wrong in the moral sense.
"I'm against the current war plans. Specifically, I'm against bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq. That doesn't mean all solutions that include military options are unthinkable. Why is that confusing?"

You're against what you propose. It's confusing because you don't want military action but everything you've proposed requires military action which is a declaration of war, but you protest war so Anti war or War? I don't know how I could be more clear. I defined exactly what I'm against. That is not necessarily any form of military action, but the stupid, unjust war of aggression being planned by my government. I repeat, why is that confusing?
I'll answer your question with a question. How much more military build up will it take before it's seen as an act of aggression and war is declared on the Iraqi side? By backing the Iraqi regime into a corner they're left with no other alternative than to come out fighting if they wish to remain in power.I believe that, done intelligently, steps like I outlined would take away Saddam's ability to make war. Deny his air force the sky and pin down his troops, and much of the rest would take care of itself, as you point out in the rest of your paragraph:
The Kurds are doing well because they aren't oppressing their people and using the monetary aid for what it was intended and it's working. The money never gets past Saddam and his intentions. I too wish the world community would trust our leadership but again it's strange to hear that coming from one such as yourself.I'm aware of why it works in the Kurdish areas, and that's exactly what I'm saying ought to be extended to the rest of Iraq.
If we patrol and something not allowed happens and we take action it's a declaration of war. Not to be repetitve but what you propose is a declaration of war.I'm not proposing "we" do anything, except as part of an international police action. Saddam is an outlaw, and ought to be treated that way. We probably could have gotten UN backing for that in a heartbeat if not for Bush's inept diplomacy.
"Well, that's why I'm not advocating sanctions by themselves. I said "effective."

Define. I did already. Not letting Saddam smuggle oil to fund weapons development, and distributing the oil-for-food receipts through non-governmental channels.
It won't be a unilarteral war... What I'm for is getting the job done with or without the backing of the UN. We don't need the permission of the UN and never have, but we want to be diplomatic and try to include all that will support us but the UN is a debating forum and not conducive to progress.Under international law, the kind we used to execute German and Japanese leaders after WWII, there is never a justification for going to war without a real threat against us. We only need UN permission if we don't want to be war criminals. Of course, "the UN is ... not conducive to progress" when that progress means prosecuting an unnecessary war. That's the whole point, that war is generally a bad thing, and having a "debating forum" is preferable to getting people killed and driven from their homes. That's what it's intended for.

Still confused?

I've really gotta get back to work...

[Jackanape]

Malone wrote:

"It seems to me the stock market has been the most effective protest organization we've got. Every time it looks like we're getting closer to war, the major indexes dive like a submarine."

You mean like the 282 point jump the Dow did today? Or the 51 point jump the NASDAQ did, or the 29 point jump the S&P 500 did today for that matter... That's one heck of a submarine.

At least Malone and I agree about the Klan being awful. I'm glad we have at least some common ground.

[jmbg29]

My point, however, had nothing to do with whether either case would be just. It was that Saddam would have a much harder time making use of the hypothetical case for propaganda purposes.No he wouldn't.

You are living proof that some people will always give him a way out no matter what.

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Malone LaVeigh:
No one from ANSWER has ever killed anyone, that I know of. Of course, I wouldn't attend a rally sponsored by terrorists. Like I said, the comparison is absurd.

Answer is a communist organization. Communists have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last century, the KKK thousands at most.

You have no problem marching with, and giving legitimacy to, mass murdering communists. And next protest, you may want to check some of those signs. There are plenty of supporters of the Palestinian terrorists attending them.

I, on the other hand, wouldn't give either of these evil groups legitimacy!

[faustulus]

jmbg29

The moment the first shot was fired in Gulf War I (firing upon enemy forces being an act of war) we were at war.

I don't disagree with you, it was a war. But it was not declared a war, like WWI and WWII, it was just like Vietnam and Korea. THERE WAS NO FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR. And no where in the resolution does congress say a state of war exists between the two countries. So no I am not wrong.

[DRC]

"Still confused?"

Please forgive me, but in answer to that question I would have to say; now more than ever.

Did you go to the link I provided? It's long but well worth the read and I recommend everyone take a look and take the time to read it. Also note the source from where it came as well as the date the transcipt took place. Again pieces of a puzzle that you may be unaware of or just don't want to see.

Legitimacy in war is a thin line that one walks regardles of how cut and dry or how vague the evidence may be. You never win the hearts of everyone envolved where war is concerned. As to the UN there are some intresting things that have come to light in the last couple of days. The first that I found intresting was that had France not been waving the veto card in the Security Council we would have had 10 votes which is more than enough to get approval in the UN but countries with sagging economies would not come forward knowing that it would be vetoed in order to save political face in their perspective countries.

The second thing I've found intresting is that France although vehemently against this war, is at the same time stepping up and is very willing to take part in the rebuilding of Iraq (because if they don't they will lose their oil contracts once Saddam is out) They are literally talking out of both sides of their face. Not surprising for the French unfortunately.

Another intresting tidbit of information that came to light this morning actually is that this war has the third largest coalition of backers in some time (I can't remember since which war though. Sorry. I'll try to find the information again.)

As to:

"I don't know how I could be more clear. I defined exactly what I'm against. That is not necessarily any form of military action, but the stupid, unjust war of aggression being planned by my government. I repeat, why is that confusing?"

To define: it's confusing because everything you, yourself, have proposed ARE, in fact, acts of aggression that can and will be viewed as a war of aggression. We haven't made all of Iraqi airspace a NFZ because we didn't want it being seen as an act of aggression nor a military takeover by UN or US troops because so many are opposed to and truly believe that the US is Imperialistic in nature.

A failure in diplomacy? Yup. But on the side of the Iraqis, French, Germans, Belgium and Russians. It's amazing the lengths the US has gone to for diplomacy, especially when we did not have to, during this administration only to have people say that GW failed at diplomacy, yet not one person ever says that the afore mentioned countries failed at anything, diplomacy included. They too are diplomats and have that responsibility as well. It takes two to tango as it were.

I like what was said regarding needing the UN's approval sos not to end up being a war criminal in international law. Bill Clinton is on that list as are many that sit on the UN councils. I don't see that it made much of an impact and it carries about as much legitimacy as the UN itself does. I recall that you said you were against a war during Clintons Administration. Which one? Also did you protest any of them? And was it an issue to you that Clinton did not have UN support for any of the wars he called for? And if I recall never even went to the UN to get their support. Just curious with respect to the sitting administration.

Bush's decision being immoral? This war being immoral? I don't think that war is moral in and of itself to begin with so morality as a label seems a bit ill placed in my opinion. But war is sometimes necessary even if there is opposition to it. It is your right to oppose it as it is my right to be for it and fight in it if need be. I believe that Bush is a moral man with moral convictions. I do not believe he would go into this without a good reason and I feel that there is more than enough evidence to justify this action to me. I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it.

Take care Malone,

DRC

[Obiwan]

What bothers me is the simple fact that these protestors are doing more to cause war than stop it.

We are shaking a stick at Iraq ....but every time we don't show a united front, that stick starts looking smaller and smaller.

We would be more likely to see compliance(I can dream) if we really looked like we were/are willing to "walk the walk".

Nobody "likes" war...but short of actual war...the threat is all that has ever kept the peace