Thread: How to deal with the peacenick ignoramuses

France and Russia both have major european oil prospectors who are vying for massive contracts with Iraq. That's at least -one- reason for them to "promote peace."

Also historically, the last time we monkeyed around with overthrowing governments in the middle east, we installed a puppet government which was quickly overthrown by a dictator. I'm sure Russia is still a little bit sore from our meddling in Russia's interests back then.

"I am pro-war. But not blindly pro-war. What bothers me the most is that a lot of the people that are either pro or anti cannot back up any of their views, or try to hide their ignorance by dancing around the questions. In my opinion, you shouldn't even express and polute the world with your opinions unless you have the ******* sense to gain some knowledge on the subject at hand." (frodobaggins)

My Thoughts exactly. Living on a major college campus I see all sorts of people with many varying opinions. As far as I am concerned, it is not my position to tell other people that what they believe is wrong. Instead I can respect any position that arises from knowledge and understanding of the subject. That is why it drives me crazy to protesters carrying their signs through campus and to read ignorant, one-sided editorials in the school newspaper, because more than half of the protesters don't have the slightest concept of the facts of the situation or the reality of the world we live in.

Good topic whoever started this, and I for one will be in strong support of the war if it unfortunately comes to that.

First off, saddam posses som serious problems and should be dealt with one way or the other.

As a european, there are quite a few things that surprices me.

The americans focus on the biological and possible nuclear weapons that iraq may posses, and uses this as one of the main reasons for invading iraq.

However the us has failed to sign a non spread agreement on these types of weapons (cant remember the name of the damn agreement)... which in my eyes doesnt make the us on bit better than iraq when it comes to the weapons part.

Killing many people / terrorising other people.
The us kills them selves in high numbers (more than any other country), the us has failed to sign the koyto agreement (polution) thus poluting the air that I breethe, thus terrorising me.
i know my comparison isnt quite fair but i still believe i have got a point.

They havent signed on to the extradition of war criminals, because they are afraid that their soldiers may get extradited. but the only way this could happen is if the americans did something wrong.

They have enprisoned their pow's on a little island stating that they were not violating the geneva convention.


In my eyes the us is disregarding close to all civilised agreements ... and failing to show any willingness to behave like a civilised nation.


Just to tell the americans that they arent perfect in any way or form.


Please understand that the us is one of the nations i appreciate the most, i share a large part of your preferences and personal values.

The us just has to learn that they cant really allow them selves to point the finger at others before their own stuff is taken care of.

I know i will get ranted on even though im just trying to put things into perspective

(excuse my spelling)

It ****es me off to think that Blair is off halfway around the world to sort out Saddam, acting with the Americans as the "first wave" so not too many US troops get killed and upset the folks back home.

Asylum seekers are frankly just taking the ****. It would be nice if we could sort out our own countries problems before taking in people from poor nations with little education to suit our society, and little skills to contribute. It's a burden on everyone to have them here.
IMHO when they are discovered, they should be sent back to the last country that they came from. If that was policy, I can bet you they would never get to the UK!

Im not anti war, Im not for war. Im against the USA being judge, jury and executioner for world politics.
If people think that there isnt an agenda over all of this other than WOMD, they really need to to pay attention. Bush is not a diplomat, he firmly believes that the US is right and cannot be challenged. Every country that goes against their line has something to lose from it. The US have stated that France will have no part in reconstruction of Iraq after the war, Germany was threatened with removal of military funding, Turkey is having a change of leadership over allowing the US to have an enhanced militray presence!

IMHO we are the verge of something very nasty happening. Since the break up of the USSR, Ive felt that there will be a "terrorist" attack on the USA eventually with nuclear armament of some kind. 911 was pretty damn close in terms of destruction, but I cant help feel when the US goes down this route they are nailing their own coffin shut.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...826528748.html
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
Make of those links what you will, but the majority of it happens to be fact.

Dave

I am anti-war, and I will explain why.

But first, a list of a few questions for the pro-war on Iraq people to answer.

1) Why now? What is so urgent about going to war right now? Why can't the US wait 45 days like the non-permanent UNSC (Security council) people want? Why can't the US wait the 120 days that France apparently wants?

2) Why Iraq? North Korea *has* WMD. They almost certainly have the bomb. They have (and frequently test) ballistic missiles. The next generation of those missiles will be able to reach California.

3) Why should we care? Saddam had chemical weapons before 9/11. He had them before the Gulf War. He didn't use them on us then, why would he do so in the future? How do we know that he would give them to terrorists?

4) Why should the US jepordize the so called "War on Terror"? Isn't it more important to be focusing all our efforts on finding terrorists world-wide?

5) Why should I pay for it? The lowest estimates have the cost at around 100 billion dollars. There are around 300 million US citizens, which means each person is paying an average of $333 dollars. Since many of those people pay signifigantly less taxes than I do, I would suspect I am paying closer to $1000 of my taxes to pay for a war I don't want.

Let me head off the inevitable response:
No, I won't leave the country if I don't like what it is doing. The point of a democracy is that I can express my views, and vote to elect people that share my views. My representatives know how I feel, and nearly all voted against war.

I guess I shoudl answer your questions as well.
1) I don't think this is a war entirely for oil. I think it was a mistake to not take out Saddam in '91.
2) Lots of world leaders have murdered many of their citizens. Many of those leaders we call our friends. How many murders must a leader commit before we take him out? 10? 100? 1000? Who decides?
3) I don't know what the alternative is. I have heard many alternatives to war. I also haven't heard any of them seriously considered by our government. I haven't heard people on TV debating them. How can I (or any other American citizen) decide when we are presented with only one choice?
4) Well, clearly from your example, we are finding things in Iraq. I think this one has the same answer as #3
5) Maybe. What if we are required to kill as many Iraqi soldies as we did in the first Gulf war? We killed thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. Don't you think a peaceful transition to a democracy in Iraq would be better? After all, if you end up in the same place, but don't have to kill people, it sounds better to me.

My issue with the way this has all been happening is the way the President is presenting the issue to us. We don't get any real talk about war being one of several options, all we hear about is war as the only option. Discussions like this are important, and I think you need to ask yourself why they don't happen more. I also would like to hear why you *dislike* discussion. What is the possible downside to examining your views about the issue. Are you afraid you might change your mind?

Twostep