Small rant re: the "peace" movement

[fallingblock]

Malone....

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

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

 

[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]

Malone... We have agreement!

" The KKK is pretty awful."

I cannot find fault with that statement.

 

[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]

Peacenik's Selective Memory?

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]

These Guys Show Up at Protests With Great Signs

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

http://protestwarrior.com/

example:

 

[DRC]

Hello Malone.

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]

Hello once again Malone.

"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