Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Anti-War SHIT

All the anti war shit on livehournal is, quite frankly, pissing me off. So u go down to the anti war rally - ur there shouting no war no war! and then some fucking arab nutter with a jacket, trousers and shoes full of C4 goes off right in the middle of the crowd - will u still be shouting anti war crap when u are led in hospital - or will u be playing anti war march tunes at your funeral.

ppl on here should grow up and open their fucking eyes - anthrax could wipe this country out in a week - our water suplies are so open it's not true - what would it take for a cpl of arabs to put a cpl of barrels of Ricin into a reservoir near your home? nothing - where would u be then? fucked.

Terrorism is happening - and something needs to be done to stop it - walking up to Osama Bin Laden and saying - hey - we should be nice to eachother - do we have a deal? isn't going to work. these ppl hate our religion and everything it represents - military targets do not apply in this war. a terrorist could strike ANYWHERE where there is a large gathering of ppl at any time. frankly an anti war march is a perfect target.

Grow up

Open your eyes.



( 29 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 30th, 2003 07:40 am (UTC)
yep, we *know* terrorism is a real threat.

But, um, osama bin laden isn't anythng to do with iraq - is he? Or Korea, the two places we are going to go to war with.

I'm all for targeting *actual people* who are a threat to us - anyone anything to do with a terrorist organisation pretty much forfeits their right to live in my book. Thats what we have our secret service for.

But, erm, a *war*? We won't be bombing terrorists, we'll be bombing civillians. Like us. People who have nothing to do with any of it.

By all means, tighten up security, vet people coming into the country, clamp down on terrorist organisations within the country, but a *war* is quite serious. They have nuclear weapons. How much would it take for them to use one?
Jan. 30th, 2003 07:44 am (UTC)

Guess who this is!

Mr Guest
Jan. 30th, 2003 07:46 am (UTC)
i didn't hear you calling to to start war with ireland, and yet the troubles have caused *much more* terrosit activity. Tell me.. are the irish much more preferable? if you believe so, then why?

And iraq is a different country to afganistan this war has nothing to do with oslama, but i supose to you one 'rag head' is much like another. better watchout, different coloured skin makes you crazed terrorist doesn't it? best declare war on india, and africa, and all those other 'foriegn' counries.

these ppl hate our religion and everything it represents so that's why the bombs on iraq will also be hitting christian churchs is it? Yes they do exist in iraq as well, because surprisingly enough the country isn't one big sterotype.
Jan. 30th, 2003 08:01 am (UTC)
Surely the whole point though, is that the war being discussed has f**k all to do with the terrorist activities mentioned above? If Iraq and all the people in it were blown to shit, there would STILL be terrorist activity, if anything more of it. So what have we achieved?

Or, as per your apparent equation of Arab = terrorist the point to simply have a race war here? Like, *thats* not terrorism on a grand scale........

Jan. 30th, 2003 08:13 am (UTC)
I agree with everything you say, apart from the bits that are ignorant, ill-advised, ill-informed, xenophobic and hatemongering.

I think your column in the Mail is smashing, by the way.

Jan. 30th, 2003 09:13 am (UTC)
You can't just go to war because you are angry or frightened. Even if it was you (or me) who went to the front, and did the killing ourselves, it wouldn't be right to kill random people because we are frightened. What happened in the US on 9/11/2001 isn't unique, it's happened in many countries many times. I can think of a dozen countires that that many civilians were killed or injured through the malice of others who hated them just in the past decade. It's frightening and it's wrong, but you can't just go around killing random people because of that.

If people put ricin into a reservoir I drank from I would probably be dead. But if someone had V2'd the street my Grandfather had walked down then he would be dead, if I'd been a mile or two south in London on a particular day in the eighties then I'd have been dead. If you drink water from a reservoir into which quite natural pathogens have taken hold, then you'd be dead too.

People who are more powerful than you (and me) will always be able to kill us. There must have been an age when you learnt that you, and then that your parents weren't invulnerable superheroes, well the same thing is true of the nation state.

I don't think that war's wrong, in general, and I do believe that Saddam is a very bad dictator who deserves to come to a sticky end. But I don't think there's enough to call for a war because things I think you need for war to be justified are missing, right now. It took me a long time to believe that; I'm not a bandwagon jumper.
It doesn't bother me if you think war is justified, but when you say terrorism is happening, it seems to me that you are saying I am terrified. To be honest, join the club. All kinds of things, deliberate and otherwise, can strike either of us down at any moment (though probably won't). Either of us could have CJD or cancer. We could have an aflavirus infection which is creating a liver tumor which we won't know about until in three months when there's not much we can do about it. Perhaps, as this was one of the things which may have been weaponised in Iraq, it's the result of some terrorist activity or perhaps a batch of mouldy peanut butter (where aflavirus lives). It's all fucking scary.

But we're more than wounded animals lashing out at people. I think that there are six things that you need to make a war justified: you need there to be a justifiable reason (I think Saddam is just that, I htink most sensible people believe that); I think you need to do it for that reason (I don't think that's happening); it needs to go through the proper channels (I think the US is ignoring the UN); it needs to be proportionate, like for like and not more (I think that's not really true); there needs to be a probability that it will work (yeah, probably, if we're lucky); and the benefits need to outweigh the costs (if the Arab-Israeli conflict blows up it will be nastier than anything). So if those things change (like the UN agrees not-under-duress would solve proper channels) then I could change my mind.
Jan. 30th, 2003 03:21 pm (UTC)
Thanks kaet, I don't really know enough to comment on what's going on, but i know that what you've written above has helped me. Thanks.
Jan. 30th, 2003 09:24 am (UTC)
You have made a flawed assumption in your argument, which is that war is the only effective solution to terrorism. This is demonstrably wrong. In fact, war encourages terrorism. In every example of modern geurilla or terrorist warfare, open attacks on the part of the victim nation has always led to a significant increase in terrorism. For examples, look at the sitation in East Timor, Palestine, Sudan, Columbia and Pakistan/Northern India.

Certainly we don't want to be the target of terrorsit attacks. But killing their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and children is really extremely unlikely to stop them trying to do so.
Jan. 30th, 2003 06:03 pm (UTC)
name me one other solution - Talking? You can't talk to a terrorist suicide bomber who has decided he has nothing to live for other than to die for his countries cause, has written his notes and is standing on a busy tube platform with half a kilo of explosives under his jacket. and quite frankly you would have to be an idiot to try.
Jan. 31st, 2003 02:20 am (UTC)
Don't try and put flawed arguments into my mouth - I have not suggested talking is a good solution. It would have been, decades ago, but there is too much bad blood now. It still does not follow that if it is too late for talking the only other solution is war. I mean, that's a seriously narrow view. What about diplomacy, or magocratic intervention, or common, down-to-earth bribery? What about accepting responsibility for our own crimes and making restitution? What about adopting our own geurilla tactics and using black ops?

What about pretty much any solution we have available to us short of outright war, because an actual war is the last possible thing that could ever defuse a situation like this?
Jan. 31st, 2003 07:36 am (UTC)
Diplomacy: The art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations - that sure sounds like talking to me you know
Magocratic intervention - Dictionary.com doesn't have an entry for magocratic and google struggled with it - iterviening was, actually, what i thought the UN was doing. Odd
Common, Down To Earth Bribery? we give u cash if u don't make bombs and blow us up - the man is a fucking nutter - a VERY CLEVER nutter - but a fucking nutter all the same.

what's gonna happen? we are gonna give him cash - he's going to sit quiet for a few years and all of a sudden the air is filled with warheads.

Wake up.
Jan. 31st, 2003 08:03 am (UTC)
To think diplomacy is just talking is wrong. It includes Gunboat Diplomacy, manipulation of the target's enemies, sanctions (economic and material), threats and spying. And some, well, less salubrious activities.

Magocratic intervention is the practice of manipulating the non-secular areas of a society or government. This is especially effective in coutries which practice Sharia (as Iraq does) or countries which have an effective or powerful clergy. This worked very well for the UN forces during the Beruit crisis. Alas, American does not think it will be effective now as they have a seriously blinding prejudice against Islam - this may well prove to be their undoing.

You don't bribe Saddam, silly! You bribe his enemies. US was trying to do this at the beginning by arming the Kurds. Believe me, there are few things more likely to turn one's attentions from external politics to internal politics than having a large, well armed rebel force on your doorstep. The downside is, you can find out at the end of the conflict that the rebel army you armed is now hostile to you - the Taliban in Afghanistan being a perfect, and topical, example.

Lastly, I would suggest you moderate your tone. I'm not sure if you realise that what you are saying is coming over as being belligerant, rude and overly defensive, but it tends to reflect badly on your argument and would encourage the view that you are being unecessarily aggressive on the issue.
(Deleted comment)
Jan. 30th, 2003 10:58 am (UTC)
Oh dear me, we really do believe all the (mainly America) government propaganda don’t we? Did you know that the US has already killed more children in Afghanistan that people who were killed in the world trade centre attack? And they don’t even what to go to war with Afghanistan. Yeah, Sadam Hussien is a nutter – and Bush is a fucking martyr right? Yay for Bush???
Do your research…
Do you think that the US would even care about Iraq if it didn’t contain one third of the world’s oil?
Bombing people never solves anything. You don’t want to be bombed, you don’t want you friends or family to be bombed do you? Well, neither do the Iraqis.
Jan. 30th, 2003 11:01 am (UTC)
Let us wallow in our ignorance and use abbreviations of the world people. . . yes this makes us look
REALLY intellgent and get these anti-war fools thinking.

This war is about oil, not terrorism, and er, not relgion. This is not a relgious nation. As an above poster, said, I doubt they have even HEARD of my relgion. By the way, these countries hate, and bomb the united states, because it can't rely on the vast and plentiful resources God gave it, and must go occupy other countries on order to take their oil. The original settlers killed the native people of this land (MY HERITAGE, by the way) and claimed it as their own. Bacially what the Americans do to any and everything they want. We destroy the earth so that twenty or so years from now, it will no longer be inhabitable (and we're worried about having our shopping malls bombed!!) If the only thing you can see is Bush on TV giving his War speeches, and don't look at the actual facts, you, as a voter, terrify me. People like you are the reason that a fool like George W is president. I'm telling you right now that a random airplane could crash into your town and kill someone you love. It happens occasionally. Should we start firebombing? China is also a potential nuclear power, and half of the crap we American consumers buy is from China, are we financing our own destruction? Should we start firebombing? What gives Americans the right to be terrorists? We send our millitary into other countries, and use "HUGE BOMBS" to gain "psychological leverage" over our enemy, and oops, accidnetally hit a village instead of our target. Oops. That WASN'T in the name of terrorism. Wake the fuck up. I don't feel that I need to go on.

Jan. 30th, 2003 11:08 am (UTC)
Come on PPL, don't U GET Anything?
Not to mention that it was Osama Bin Laden's CIA training, that even allowed him to pull off what he did.

Do some research.
(no subject) - denari - Jan. 30th, 2003 11:29 am (UTC) - Expand
Jan. 30th, 2003 11:38 am (UTC)
Hear Hear
Apart from all the obvious wild inaccuracies in this post, I feel I have to agree with the general feeling of it.
Jan. 30th, 2003 03:26 pm (UTC)

A few of my thoughts on the whole war thing. Snowehs post was a bit sieve like but I agreed with some of the sentiment. Mines not exactly put together brilliantly either but heh ho :P Dunno why people here are getting so riled up by debate.

It's all about oil?
Remember the US intervention in Somalia? A state, where the populace starve because rival warlords use food supply for their troops. The US intervened there. They fought and died to try and bring aid to the people, to bring some resolution to their civil war. They failed. But where was the oil? Somalia has no natural resources to speak of yet the US was in there for two years trying to help. Just because their big and look after their own interests doesn't mean there isn't a humanitarian bone
in there somewhere.

The old cry of this war's about oil is wearing thin. The US/UK will be looking for significant financial bonuses from teh Gulf after this war - but the incredible cost of the war justifies this. People are getting the cause/effect mixed up. They want breaks on oil cos otherwise we can't afford the mission. I certainly don't want to pay for it as a taxpayer. If the Arab states surrounding Iraq didn't agree that he needs to be forcibly removed from power then why are they letting our forces use their facilities and in some cases (Qatar) for example build huge permanent bases...

Saddam can be peacably removed?
He was involved in 2 bloody coups before finally taking power where on day 1 he killed nearly 500 ministers and military officers, some by his own hand. This is not a man who can be talked or negotiated out of power. I speculate he would rather see himself and a lot of other people die first. Saddams invasion of Iran in the eighties led to the deaths of around 1.5 million people. 3 years after that he invaded Kuwait. After ten years of trying to rebuild his army I don't think he's about to give up. Saddam's son Uday is his fathers image. This guy has a nice lil pad on the Tigris river where he regularly rapes and tortures women. Saddams legacy won't die by natural causes...

Chemical Weapons aren't a problem?
They've been found by UN inspectors in Iraq, Saddam has them at his disposal. He has ordered the use of chemical weapons - dozens of times early in the war against Iran and continously as a core strategem in the closing of the war, and against his own people. 10,000's of people have died having being exposed to Saddams Nerve and blister chemical weapons. Scuds carrying these agents were deliberately targetted against cities as well as armies. The cry 'we have weapons of mass destruction too' well - we have democratically elected leaders who have been pretty good about not using them. I personally would rather these were taken off his hands.

CONTINUED BELOW (hit character limit)
Jan. 30th, 2003 03:30 pm (UTC)
And what I feel most strongly about...

Innocents will be killed - we can't do this?
Though western governments have tried to sell us on efficient and precise weaponry and the possibility of 'clean' wars where no-one innocent gets killed - we all know it's not quite like that. Soldiers are certain to die in any conflict and it's highly likely there will be some civilian casualties too.

Reflect upon this, however.

15% of the Iraq's population have fled the country since the eighties

Torture in Iraq is well documented as everyday practice. Not just for condemned criminals - but for extracting information from civilians; including women and children. Not just torture by whipping or starving but by eye gouging, piercing of hands with electric drills, electric shock, beatings on the soles of feet, mock executions, acid baths, extraction of finger and toe-nails, stubbing cigarettes out on prisoners' bodies, and sexual abuse. Systematic rape is a tool of Saddams security forces.

1984 Abu Ghraib: Saddam detains many political prisoners to this day. People incarcerated for no more than voicing their anti-government opinion like yourselves. 4000 political prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison were executed in 1984 due to overcrowding.

1987-88.. The 'Anfal' campaign: Saddam trucked an estimated 100,000 kurdish males from villages in the north to remote execution grounds. There are only seven known survivors of this genocide.

1999 Protest: 100's of Shi'ite muslims were gunned down by troops loyal to Saddam during a peaceful anti-governemnt demonstration like the one some of you want to go to.

There's far more than this documented but that's sufficient unpleasantness to proove my point.

If we can remove this tyrant even at the cost of some innocents... is it not for the greater good? A judgement call I guess; and a tough one. But not nearly so black and white as some people here seem to believe. I for one would say/vote that it is better to remove him and his loyal followers and if that costs innocents lives.. I can live with it.

On a technical note - much progress has been made in the last ten years with accurate weaponry, intelligence gathering and 'softkill' weaponry designed to leave people healthy and equipment dead. There are people trying to make this war as bloodless as possible. For example humanitarian aid to Iraq will commence alongside the war at a higher level than seen post-Gulf War. The word from military intelligence, conducting a psychological campaign to convince Iraqis to surrender, is that massive surrender will be a hallmark of the war.. with only those units loyal to saddam resisting. We can hope :/

Links with terrorism - what we can proove?
Not much at the moment, but what do we need to proove? I think Saddams removal is justifiable by the above. Our government seems very cagey about definately saying there's a link. So perhaps their intelligence is hazy on this. If they do know something it would be very politically expedient for them to tell us - however that would unneccesarrily risk lives either directly or indirectly. If there was a 100% certifiable link then I believe they would say so and on commencement of hostilities let us all in on it. Time will tell.

hmmz - I had more in my head but I wanna play Unreal now :P That's prolly enough to chew on.

Jan. 30th, 2003 03:51 pm (UTC)

these ppl hate our religion and everything it represents

Can't say I blame them. Throughout history, Christians have committed countless attrocities in the name of their God - butchering men, women and children simply because they were different. Neither side is right and from where I'm standing are no better than each other.

Jan. 30th, 2003 06:13 pm (UTC)
Saddam, an evil tyrant? Check. I have to say that I don't have any sympathy for the man at all, and I'm not going to argue against war by criticising the West for its past atrocities - nobody wants a reminder of a dark past when he or she thinks that he or she is doing the right thing. But I would argue against war for other reasons.

Innocent people are going to be bombed and killed, and Saddam will not. Guns and shells will shoot bystanders (and Iraqi soldiers who think that they have no choice but to defend their homeland), but dictator Hussein won't take a single hit. As Bin Laden has proven, the real villains go into hiding while their fanatics are forsaken and left behind to fight and die. Saddam knows of the hostility building towards him, and come the war, he will be the most protected man in Iraq, if he is even still inside the country. War is a very clumsy weapon, like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer; I'm more inclined to condone the efforts that the intelligence community has been making over the last decade or so to convince Hussein's royal guards to overthrow him themselves.

To the comment that civilians will get killed, but it will be for the greater good, I would say that there is a difference between a few innocents caught accidentally in the crossfire and bombs over Baghdad. Certain people argue that the innocents of Iraq suffer even without war, because of Saddam's regime of torture and oppression. True, but it is a spurious arguement to claim that killing Iraqi civilians is okay, because it cannot make the situation any worse. Truth is that saving the people of Iraq from Saddam is not something that the West can do through war. Bush's warmongering has harmed the possibility of liberating Iraq because it has confirmed for the Iraqis what Saddam's propaganda machine has always implied: "the West is evil and wants to kill you."

And for the arguement that taking financial resources in Iraq would be fair compensation for the US and UK war effort, I have nothing but contempt. That sure was a Machiavellian justification for plunder. I can understand that there are people out there who honestly think that a new Gulf War will liberate the Iraqi people, but that comment tried to sound right-on but is devoid of scruples. It boils down to "It cost us a lot to beat them up, so that justifies us stealing their stuff." What?

And I wish people would stop accusing the anti-war protesters of taking a soft line, implying that advocating peace is a cowardly answer. I have seen peace advocates be accused of doing more harm than good, on the grounds that they "leave Iraqis to suffer under Saddam". Yeah, and I'm sure that the people advocating war from their armchairs are taking the hard and noble path. War is death as a day job, or is that not obvious enough since we aren't on the front line? US, UK and Iraqi people will die in huge numbers, and many of them on all sides will be good people who only did what they thought they had no choice but to do.

Saddam probably has illegal weapons of mass destruction, and, to be honest, I am not completely averse to his removal by force. However, when I heard about the build up of US and UK tanks and bombers in the Gulf area, I realised that this would be an attack on Iraqi people, not on Saddam. The US/UK offensive is going to be overkill, and that's what makes it unjustified.
Jan. 30th, 2003 07:07 pm (UTC)
The whole point of the war is to remove Saddam and his loyal followers, put the current 'government in exile' in their place and restore democracy. How could Bush etc save any face w/o achieving these objectives - they will push until the job is done. I have no doubt that should a war go ahead Saddaam will end up dead or in custody; similar larger than life figures have been cornered throughout history. Failure is possible granted - this is to mean they shouldn't try?

'Bombs over Baghdad' spurs melodramatic images of B-52's carpet bombing regions to dust. That ain't gonna happen. I guess arguing this either way is as good as football pundits before a game - pointless. Lets see how it pans out. Things are in motion beyond our ken or control and we're left with having to trust our duly elected representatives in the job. Rallies won't make a difference. Be fun tho I expect :P

And yeh the financial argument was a tad shaky... but why shouldn't the Gulf region pay for it tbh. Why should we? A Middle East without Saddam is an inherently more stable place to live. Seems to be a better way round than in the past (where we gave em the weapons for cash).

I'm not accusing you or any other anti-war protester of a soft line.. it's a tough issue so anyones view is a difficult one to justify/live with. Everyone has their own views on these things. I wasn't trying to lay down the law - just say how I see things.

"US, UK and Iraqi people will die in huge numbers, and many of them on all sides will be good people who only did what they thought they had no choice but to do."

Hmmz. The only US and UK people over there should be professional soldiers. They signed up for this. It's their life choice.. don't see how any of us can question that. In the first Gulf war casualties were at a minimum despite huge fears beforehand. Saddams war machine now essentially lacks an Air Force or Navy or any modern equipment. Casualties should hopefully be lighter, short of some rear echelon unit getting caught out by a chemical attack.

Iraqi's are a different matter civilians are at risk obviously but actually in the firing line are thousands of poor conscripts shovelled into a uniform and issued an AK. It is these forces that we're hoping will surrender en masse (this happened during Desert Storm) to avoid unneccesary bloodshed.

I genuinly think the scales will do more than balance out. Several life times of oppression for you, 25million other iraqis and your descendants or a massive upheaval, allbeit dangerous... as an Iraqi I'd rather take my chance with US bombs than live a life under Saddam Hussein.


Feb. 28th, 2003 08:01 am (UTC)
There are a helluva lot of inaccuracies and flawed arguments here, but I suspect goddessnoweh was just trying to cause a stir with her erroneous and bigotted comments.

As an Iraqi I'd rather take my chance with US bombs than live a life under Saddam Hussein.

I am an Iraqi and as an Iraqi (and I speak for the majority of Iraqis) we'd neither want Saddam nor US bombs! That's like giving me the choice between two terminal cancers; if I truly had the choice I'd choose neither! Die at the hands of American and UK intervention or die at the hands of Saddam.

Shall we discuss the greater good? The greater good is neither in a "Gulf War 2" nor in letting Saddam stay in power and yes there are other options...the rest of the world thinks that, the majority of the UK government think that; only Bush, his advisors and the puppet Blair disagree.

I for one would say/vote that it is better to remove him and his loyal followers and if that costs innocents lives.. I can live with it.

Of course you can live with it . . . the bombs are going off in a country far far away from your good self. You won't have to live with the repercussions, lost family, etc, etc. You can live happily ever after, that's obvious.
Jan. 31st, 2003 07:54 am (UTC)
All the anti war shit on livehournal is, quite frankly, pissing me off. So u go down to the anti war rally - ur there shouting no war no war! and then some fucking arab nutter with a jacket, trousers and shoes full of C4 goes off right in the middle of the crowd
What exactly has that got to do with a US-led war? I do not recall anyone planning do declare war on an "arab nutter" in Hyde Park - or have I missed something?
- will u still be shouting anti war crap when u are led in hospital -
Quite frankly YES because it would be the WAR CRAP that got me there (if you don't get this, go look the words "cause" and "effect" up in the Encyclopedia Brittanica [hint: that is quite a long, boring book you might find in your local library] - it might help [but then again, probably not; the damage is apparently already done)
or will u be playing anti war march tunes at your funeral.
If you count New Model Army, probably YES (according to my Will at least), although something tells me *I* probably won't be playing them. By the way, I hear that they stopped bothering with playing tunes on the now quite frequent funerals of the 500,000 Iraqis that died as a result of the first Yankee gulf war - but I would imagine that the songs they used to sing there might have contained a line or two expressing opposition to Yankee aggression
ppl on here should grow up and open their fucking eyes - anthrax could wipe this country out in a week
Correct my if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge the only country proven to have large-scale Anthrax supplies are - you guessed it - the States!
- our water suplies are so open it's not true - what would it take for a cpl of arabs to put a cpl of barrels of Ricin into a reservoir near your home? nothing - where would u be then? fucked.
I notice you apparently have a bit of a general issue with people from Middle Eastern decend - as well as all those black and yellow bastards, am I right?
Apart from that, I wouldn't be fucked, but fine, as you'd need to saturate any water about 10:1 (that is 10 parts of Ricin to 1 part of water) to make it have any effect anyway.
Apart from that, I strongly doubt that a couple of barrels of Ricin would be able to lower the general tap water quality any further - you don't *seriously* drink that stuff, do you? Might explain a thing or two...
Terrorism is happening - and something needs to be done to stop it
Exactly. There are some desparate people with nothing to lose out there trying to stop Yankee terrorism just now - like blowing up enemy infrastructure.
If you read UN reports, you will doubtlessly know that the States are the only country ever being indicted for continuous support of terrorism world-wide - the US government provide more training, money, weapons and resources to terrorists then all other nations worldwide (this is UN info, not from some "deluded fringe group", mind you.
- walking up to Osama Bin Laden and saying - hey - we should be nice to eachother - do we have a deal? isn't going to work.
...the reason being that the States have made and broken that promise so many times and and inflicted to much suffering and death upon the rest of the world for more than half a century now that no-one is dumb enough to believe them any more even if they tried that approach
Apart from that, I understand that the present demonstrations focus on war on *Iraq*, not Afghanistan (Hint: two different countries); historically, it was the Yankees, not Iraq, who provided bin Laden with the weapons, training and money (more than $6mn) during the 80's and early 90's that he then used to strike against them.
center on these ppl hate our religion and everything it represents
What religion exactly do you refer to?
- military targets do not apply in this war. a terrorist could strike ANYWHERE where there is a large gathering of ppl at any time.
True. Ceaseless bombing runs against civilians for more than 8 years in the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq come to mind as an example to illustrate this point. Nice one. ;-)
frankly an anti war march is a perfect target.
No. But the Pentagon is.
Grow up
Open your eyes
Jan. 31st, 2003 07:59 am (UTC)
O look - a perfect example of nitpicking

Do a little research into saddam hussain.

Stop being so ignorant people.
i'm sick of hearing ' o look at that poor defenceless country itsn't it wrong what they are doing to it!'
Jan. 31st, 2003 10:29 am (UTC)
You're still missing the point. There is no link, certainly no proven link between Iraq and international terrorism, and definitley not to Osama Bin Laden. Saddam and Osama are in fact natural enemies, largely due to them being different types of Moslem, although there are many other factors.

Yes, terrorism is a scary thing. Yes, September 11th was horrific. No, it does not have anything to do with the upcoming war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, true. However, he is having enough to worry about to hang on to power in his country without starting trouble outside it.

The proposed war against Iraq is not justifiable, as things stand at the moment. If the Allies wish to depose Saddam, they should have done so the last time round. At the moment, the UN weapons inspectors have not found enough evidence of the Weapons of Mass destruction that Saddam is alledged to possess. Without this "smoking gun," and without the support of the United Nations, the proposed war against Iraq would constitute nothing more than an act of aggression against a tin pot little country which poses no threat to anyone except its own people.

Should the UN weapons inspectors find evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and receive a mandate from the United Nations, the war would have the sanction of the rest of the international community, and as a result it would have legitimacy.

Please, do not confuse the issue of International Terrorism with the issue of war against Iraq. There is no connection.
Jan. 31st, 2003 10:43 am (UTC)
Had I been nit-picking, I'd have commented on your spelling and grammar.
Feb. 3rd, 2003 03:45 am (UTC)
Ha ha
God I havent been here for ages. But its nice to know in this unstable world some things stay the same and you ability to speak crap is timeless. If thinking and writing well behind your years isnt retarded what is? Your boyfriend is more eloquent but also appears to be a brainwashed fool who takes his history lessons from the News of the Workd and Hollywood with their bastardization of history. Black Hawk down- that was real want it!? Ha Ha.Not may civilians died there at all did they!? Somalia was about oil. Do you honestly think a country like American who in the developed world gives by far least money per head to foreign aid would give a fuck about some starving Africans? When have they ever taken risks with their men unless its for Americas own good? Open your eyes. It was about Oil. Several large oil companies wanted to carve up the country between them to produce oil but they wouldnt commit as there was an unstable government. The US wanted to overthrough the warlord and corrupt government.That was what it was all about. There are many corrupt regimes throughout the world that no one gives a fuck about -because they dont have anything to gain. Millions upon millions are starving through war and famine- where is American intervention? Fuck off and get a brain. They dont do anything unless its in their intrest. They are a rich and powerful bully. They have pulled out of environment and war crimes agreements because they feel so superior and dont have to answer to anyone.
I personally think this whole war thing is more about finding a scapegoat for 9/11 beacuse they cant get Bin Laden and the quite frankly mad Bush thinks its personal-finishing daddies work. All the terrorists have come from North Africa or Saudi Arabi, Pakistan. Iraq is a weak target. Osama hates and is hated by all the leaders in the middle East. The reason behind terrorist attacks is the support of Israel particularly by the US and Australia (hence Bali bombings) and to a lesser extend the UK. Quite frankly they have a point and who can fucking blame them if you were in its shoes. You just dont have the ability to think beyond little brown people with bombs strapped to them. It just goes to show that the saying "90% of the population is stupid" may well be valid.
Never mind tho- it will happen so you can spend your pointless life watching the telly with nice explosions and pictures of bombs hitting targets and lots of those brownie civilians being blown up because mad old Bush and lap dog Blair could do with a few vote winners. The rich bullying the poor for no other reason- apart from they can

( 29 comments — Leave a comment )