Author Topic: Largest Peaceful Demonstration in British History... (Read 1804 times)

Habu · « **Reply #30 on:** February 15, 2003, 03:09:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by kbman
Yeager,
I did no such thing. I specifically refered to that responsibilty in all it's subtleties and manifestations. You make the fallacious connection between expression of one's belief that this war is unjustified and support for Saddam. blab blaa blaaa
kbman

Amazing all those fancy words and it still comes out sounding like nonsense........

blitz · « **Reply #31 on:** February 15, 2003, 03:12:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So you are saying the US military is running the government now.....

But Blitz how does the uncomfortable fact that your dear all-powerful UN resolutions dating back to 1991 or so, let alone the most recent Resulution 1441, clearly state there should be severe military consequences if Iraq breaches the surrender agreement and hinders the disarmament process?

Heck, looks to me like you really love to see the military in action,sittin in front of ya tv, watchin CNN real videos .
Ever thought about young american guys gona die there?
Might only a few hundreds of them to die too with a lot of iraqis but i hate to gonna see a single american boy die there at all for a bad thing.

Regards Blitz

Habu · « **Reply #32 on:** February 15, 2003, 03:14:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by blitz
Heck, looks to me like you really love to see the military in action,sittin in front of ya tv, watchin CNN real videos .
Ever thought about young american guys gona die there?
Might only a few hundreds of them to die too with a lot of iraqis but i hate to gonna see a single american boy die there at all for a bad thing.

Regards Blitz

The Americans are willing to accept the chance they may be killed and that some will be killed in order to fight for a just cause.

That is what makes America and its soldiers great.

Hangtime · « **Reply #33 on:** February 15, 2003, 03:24:56 PM »

We had millions opposed here in the USA to getting involved in WWI. Millions more opposed getting involved again in 1940.. the overwhelming majority of americans opposed Roosevelt's planned support of the British circa 1940-1941. They called it Roosevelts War, and very vocally prevented his leading america into that fight then.. to the point that he almost was oustered for lend-lease.

There was no direct threat to america in 1916 or 1940.

What would europe be like today if we didn't put on the cowboy hat and ride to the rescue?

Foolish Europe.. you cannot escape history; yet you refuse to embrace it's lessons.

I weep for the species.

kbman · « **Reply #34 on:** February 15, 2003, 03:35:23 PM »

Habu,
You seem to have a problem treating anyone who disagrees with you respectfully. That is your choice and burden to bear. It's only nonsense if you don't understand it. I have expressed no opinion for or against the war in Iraq, only a belief in the fundamental right of people to express theirs. That is why we all love our freedom and why anyone would lay their lives on the line to protect that right. Simple enough?

kbman

SaburoS · « **Reply #35 on:** February 15, 2003, 03:37:01 PM »

I'm against the war against Iraq. I'm against that some of our military will die pursuing a corrupt result. We go in and kill Saddam. We install another dictator only this time this dictator is very US business friendly. This new dictator will still not be for freedom and democracy (oh, he'll make the right speaches and so forth, but there will not be freedom of the press, free speech, unions, democratic voting). Many Iraqis (both military and innocent civillians) will die in this war.
War should be the very last option when all else has failed. Sadaam never was, is not, won't be a real threat to the US. He was our ally.
Now for those of you that want to have war, I'll gladly approve of my tax dollars funding of your trip to Iraq. You're all so brave with war as long as you don't have to go and do the fighting. (that's okay though as that's one thing our current administration has in common with you chicken hawks).

Hangtime · « **Reply #36 on:** February 15, 2003, 03:41:29 PM »

Quote

Ever thought about young american guys gona die there?

Every waking moment it seems.

It disturbs me deeply.

It disturbs each and every one of the protestors I've seen on TV too.

So why am I a proponet of military action in Iraq?

The price of appeasment in 1939 ran to 43 million lives.

Can we afford to appease saddam or his ilk?

blitz · « **Reply #37 on:** February 15, 2003, 03:43:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
We had millions opposed here in the USA to getting involved in WWI. Millions more opposed getting involved again in 1940.. the overwhelming majority of americans opposed Roosevelt's planned support of the British circa 1940-1941. They called it Roosevelts War, and very vocally prevented his leading america into that fight then.. to the point that he almost was oustered for lend-lease.

There was no direct threat to america in 1916 or 1940.

What would europe be like today if we didn't put on the cowboy hat and ride to the rescue?

Foolish Europe.. you cannot escape history; yet you refuse to embrace it's lessons.

I weep for the species.

Ahoi hang,

thats right . And ya had millions in America goin on the streets to end a mindless war in Vietnam which costs the life of 60000 young americans , hit the life of a whole generation and brought the druggs into your cities just for nothin...., and even if ya won that useless war it had been for nothin at all.

Regards Blitz

USA isn't threatened by Iraq in any way and Iraq ist a world war .

Habu · « **Reply #38 on:** February 15, 2003, 03:47:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by kbman
Habu,
You seem to have a problem treating anyone who disagrees with you respectfully. That is your choice and burden to bear. It's only nonsense if you don't understand it. I have expressed no opinion for or against the war in Iraq, only a belief in the fundamental right of people to express theirs. That is why we all love our freedom and why anyone would lay their lives on the line to protect that right. Simple enough?

kbman

No. This is simple. Protest against the US making Iraq live up to the UN resolutions and you are in fact protesting in favor of Iraq and its present government.

Leave Iraq alone means leave Saddam alone. Leave him free to brutalize his people. To kill them. To aquire WMD. To give money to the families of bombers. To support terrorism.

Funny I could not sleep at night if I supported that stand. I wonder how you do?

Habu · « **Reply #39 on:** February 15, 2003, 03:57:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by blitz
Ahoi hang,

thats right . And ya had millions in America goin on the streets to end a mindless war in Vietnam which costs the life of 60000 young americans just for nothin....

Regards Blitz

The US learned allot from Vietnam and since Vietnam. Which is why they will never lose a war like that again. In Vietnam it was the politicians calling the shots in battle. Now it is the military.

If Vietnam had been fought with the intention of winning it then the US would have. To do so would have entailed facing down the USSR and China though. Since the US politicians were not willing to do that they should have committed to the war. If they had done that they would have won. By not doing it they allowed the Viet Cong to humiliate them.

As I said they learned by their mistakes. There is no half way in war. You are either in 100% or not at all.

Which is precisely why the regime of Saddam Hussein is doomed if the US attack.

Hangtime · « **Reply #40 on:** February 15, 2003, 03:58:25 PM »

Quote

USA isn't threatened by Iraq in any way

Blitz, I strongly disagree. That is the central issue.. and it's why we are going to war this time. It ain't to pull YOUR fat outta the fryer this time.. it's a pre-emptive attack on a supporter of AQ, Hammas and other terrorist/ fundamentalist groups, and a known possesor and manufacturer of WMD.

We've demonstrated to our satisfaction that a clear threat is posed by saddam and his regime. Demonstrate refuting evidence.. show me credible links that debunk the CIA and State Department evidence as displayed by Colin Powell on Feb 5 at the UN and I will grab a sign and join the protests.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #41 on:** February 15, 2003, 04:04:34 PM »

In 1940 – 42, the ‘America First Committee’ influenced public opinion through publications and speeches and within a year the organization had 450 local chapters and over 800,000 members, when the US population was on the order of 140 million.

An excerpt from one of their statements:

Quote

“In his speech on September 11, 1941, President Roosevelt informed the nation that, without consultation with, or approval by, the Congress of the United States, he had ordered our naval and air patrols to clear all German and Italian warships from any waters considered vital to American defense, and had, in effect, ordered our armed forces to "shoot on sight." . . .

His asserted justification for this sudden move, admittedly involving danger of involvement in a "shooting war," arose out of the sinking of three merchant ships and attacks on two American warships....

[The] important criticisms of the President's speech are these: 1) shooting war is not justified; 2) it circumvents the spirit of the Neutrality Act and the Lease-Lend law; 3) the doctrine which the President calls "freedom of the seas" is really "freedom to aid one country at war without interference from that country's enemies"; 4) it takes the war-making power away from Congress.[/b]

Examination of the circumstances under which occurred the attacks upon American ships cited by the President, demonstrates clearly that they fail utterly to justify participation in a "shooting war."

The three merchant ships were the Robin Moor, the Steel Seafarer and the Sessa. The Robin Moor was sunk in the South Atlantic while carrying contraband to British South Africa, a country at war.... The Steel Seafarer was sunk without loss of life in the Red Sea, some 12,000 miles from the United States, while carrying war supplies for Britain, a country at war....”

Printed in a newsletter, 23 September 1941

A few months after this statement, they issued another statement, expressing full support for the war effort.

I wonder what changed their minds?

beet1e · « **Reply #42 on:** February 15, 2003, 04:09:28 PM »

I realised how misguided the marchers were when, passing the news stands this morning, I saw the Daily Mirror with a picture of a very ill Iraqi boy on the front page. The mirror claimed that this boy was one reason not to go to war with Iraq. And I could not help thinking that Saddam has killed thousands like him - by starvation - by the way he has dealt with sanctions imposed against him because of his own bellicose behaviour.

The demonstrators/marchers have a very limited field of view. The last anti-military demonstration of this kind that I remember was that of the "Peace Wimmin" who demonstrated outside the airbase at USAF Greenham Common in the mid 1980s against Cruise Missile deployment. They wanted Britain to scrap all nuclear weapons - in the HOPE that Russia would do the same!!!

That's like advising people not to lock their doors at night, in the HOPE that burglars will turn over a new leaf...

The demonstrators/marchers are well meaning people - just like the Greenham Common Peace Wimmin, but do not have a complete grasp of the situation. I believe that more Iraqi lives will be saved if action is taken against Saddam, than would be lost if he retains power. That is my belief. The job should have been finished the first time, but the Unilateral Nannies put a stop to it.

Now the only embarrassing thing is that it would be nice if we had more data linking Saddam to al qaeda. But we have to look back in history to Libya/Gaddaffi. He openly voiced his disdain for the west, and his support for terror. He was dealt with in 1986. People say that Saddam poses no threat to the USA or the rest of the world. To that, I add my considered one word reply: BOLLOCKS. Just because Saddam is not in a position to launch an offensive against the US/western world does not mean that he is not sympathetic to that cause. I believe he would sell his weapons, so far "unaccounted for" to anti-US terror groups. And make no mistake: If they are anti US, they are likely anti the rest of the western world.

So Krusher - welcome to the west. I have met Iraqis who echoed your views entirely. Just now on British TV, I saw one young Iraqi woman (pro-war) arguing the point with our own lefty pacifist banana, Tony Benn, who was totally unprepared.

No-one *likes* war. No-one *likes* the dentist's drill. And we take precautions to avoid it. On occasion, things don't go as we had hoped, and a tooth needs attention. The dentist's drill is far more preferable to the decay and agonising toothache that would otherwise follow. (Sorry, my analogy bin is running low)

Hangtime · « **Reply #43 on:** February 15, 2003, 04:20:02 PM »

Quote

No-one *likes* war. No-one *likes* the dentist's drill. And we take precautions to avoid it. On occasion, things don't go as we had hoped, and a tooth needs attention. The dentist's drill is far more preferable to the decay and agonising toothache that would otherwise follow. (Sorry, my analogy bin is running low)

ROFL beetle!

Yer anology strikes home. Just lost two teeth in the dentists chair thursday. Agony. Blinding agony. The pain that precceded it (years of it) finally drove me into the madmans chair. He was a saudi, by the way.

Anyway.. got the first good nights sleep I've had in over a year last night.. finally free of the grinding pain thats been racking me. The momentary agony of the dentist vs no more pain today... good trade. shoulda done it sooner. Fear kept me outta the chair.. pain drove me to it at last.

Moral of the story? I have no idea.

I AM m looking forward to pain-free living now...

blitz · « **Reply #44 on:** February 15, 2003, 04:20:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Blitz, I strongly disagree. That is the central issue.. and it's why we are going to war this time. It ain't to pull YOUR fat outta the fryer this time.. it's a pre-emptive attack on a supporter of AQ, Hammas and other terrorist/ fundamentalist groups, and a known possesor and manufacturer of WMD.

We've demonstrated to our satisfaction that a clear threat is posed by saddam and his regime. Demonstrate refuting evidence.. show me credible links that debunk the CIA and State Department evidence as displayed by Colin Powell on Feb 5 at the UN and I will grab a sign and join the protests.

Sorry hang,

would love to do but most is reading on newspapers here.
When Collin Powell held his speech at UN he used (among others) a brit paper which was later uncovered to be copied from a 10year old work of a britich studend.
Tells me some.....

Regards Blitz