-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Just got back from Anti-war protest
Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
And I would say that only 1 out of 20 anti-war supporters give this any thought at all. They think peace is the only answer but agree that Saddam needs to be taken out of power....go figure.
Of course my statistics have no basis except for what I see on the forums so my statistics mean nothing 🙂
Red Dawn
Elite Member
I think along the same lines except that after giving the Inspectors the time that the Old European Trio insist on and if they still oppose forcibly disarming Iraq, then we go ahead and do it without their support. Of course I look at us not being able to convince them to support our actions as a failure of the Bush Administration.
DaveSohmer:
The really sad part of these "anti-war" protests is when they interview some of these people. They all say Saddam's a bad man and he should be disarmed. My question to them is, "Then why aren't you holding a rally that says "Disarm Iraq". How do you think it 's going to get done quicker? With 50 countries having troops in the ME and millions of people calling for his diarmament or two countries with troops in the ME and millions at "anti-war" rallies. Of course the thousands of contrary assh0les and oligophrenics around the world (and the many on this board) would have to admit that they support our goverments policy which is regime change and disarmament, not war. Of course, judging by the number of "No blood for oil", "Bush is a warmonger" and the "No Racist War" signs at these rallies, it is obvious that the average IQ there is frmly embedded at the mid-double digit level so trying to explain the concept of sabre rattling to them would be akin to trying to explain the theory of relativity to a houseplant.
-------------------------
This would be a valid point if anyone could have any confidence at all that Bush were saber rattling. I feel that the reason Bush has failed to convince the Russians and French is that they know that is not his intent, that his intent is and has been really and actually to get support for a real war. Us ordinary folk can't read his mind. All we can do is try to interpret the information we get the best we can. What I cannot do is surrender my judgment for yours in the face of an act of agression that will, if it happens, redefine the definition of when we use warfare to settle problems. I don't want my country to engage in an action I consider to be evil. If that means I have the intelligence of a houseplant, I don't mind at all.
I oppose this agression without worldwide consensus regardless of imaginary risk. We need to focus everything on terror and those who have nothing to target in retaliation. States like Iraq can disappear in a flash if they ever attack us here with WMD. Nobody can ever be sure he won't get caught and his intentions traced back to source.
The issue of WMD needs to take on an international priority. Countries, without the threat of war looming overhead and independent of particular examples like Iraq need to come to terms with the implications of WMD, their development by agressive and dictatorial governments, the possibility of insane leaders suplanting sane ones, etc. It may be time for world leaders to take steps to inform the people of the world directly that they must consider the manner and organization of their governments, that they will be asked to pay a price for where their leaders take them in the form of international laws that mandate the distruction of populations harboring mass murders of any kind. As we approach the likelihood of mass extinction, we must consider the possibility of a world revolution in our thinking if we really wish to avoid it.
The time isn't far away when single individuals, psychopaths and worce, may be able to destroy all life. He have got to start taking the matter of our sanity, and how we become insane seriously. The chimpanzee that is man, has become desparately sick. We need a revolution in consciousness.
The really sad part of these "anti-war" protests is when they interview some of these people. They all say Saddam's a bad man and he should be disarmed. My question to them is, "Then why aren't you holding a rally that says "Disarm Iraq". How do you think it 's going to get done quicker? With 50 countries having troops in the ME and millions of people calling for his diarmament or two countries with troops in the ME and millions at "anti-war" rallies. Of course the thousands of contrary assh0les and oligophrenics around the world (and the many on this board) would have to admit that they support our goverments policy which is regime change and disarmament, not war. Of course, judging by the number of "No blood for oil", "Bush is a warmonger" and the "No Racist War" signs at these rallies, it is obvious that the average IQ there is frmly embedded at the mid-double digit level so trying to explain the concept of sabre rattling to them would be akin to trying to explain the theory of relativity to a houseplant.
-------------------------
This would be a valid point if anyone could have any confidence at all that Bush were saber rattling. I feel that the reason Bush has failed to convince the Russians and French is that they know that is not his intent, that his intent is and has been really and actually to get support for a real war. Us ordinary folk can't read his mind. All we can do is try to interpret the information we get the best we can. What I cannot do is surrender my judgment for yours in the face of an act of agression that will, if it happens, redefine the definition of when we use warfare to settle problems. I don't want my country to engage in an action I consider to be evil. If that means I have the intelligence of a houseplant, I don't mind at all.
I oppose this agression without worldwide consensus regardless of imaginary risk. We need to focus everything on terror and those who have nothing to target in retaliation. States like Iraq can disappear in a flash if they ever attack us here with WMD. Nobody can ever be sure he won't get caught and his intentions traced back to source.
The issue of WMD needs to take on an international priority. Countries, without the threat of war looming overhead and independent of particular examples like Iraq need to come to terms with the implications of WMD, their development by agressive and dictatorial governments, the possibility of insane leaders suplanting sane ones, etc. It may be time for world leaders to take steps to inform the people of the world directly that they must consider the manner and organization of their governments, that they will be asked to pay a price for where their leaders take them in the form of international laws that mandate the distruction of populations harboring mass murders of any kind. As we approach the likelihood of mass extinction, we must consider the possibility of a world revolution in our thinking if we really wish to avoid it.
The time isn't far away when single individuals, psychopaths and worce, may be able to destroy all life. He have got to start taking the matter of our sanity, and how we become insane seriously. The chimpanzee that is man, has become desparately sick. We need a revolution in consciousness.
Savarak
Platinum Member
I am very annoyed that all these anti-AMERICAN peeople deliberatly ignore the fact that the MAJORITY of UN is FOR the forcible removal of Saddam!!! There is no possibility that the US will have "UNILATERAL" action because there are at least 16 other countries that are in support, yet the media ONLY play on the France/German/Belgium angle!
The soldiers and their actions in the Revolutionary WAR got us the FREEDOMS we enjoy today, not "peaceful anti-taxation and undue control from the King protests". Although I support those liberal lunatic's FREEDOM TO PROTEST, I wholeheartedly HATE how they abuse that ability to weaken the moral support of our soldiers who !ARE/WILL BE FIGHTING TO SPREAD AND SECURE FREEDOM for other countries!
The soldiers and their actions in the Revolutionary WAR got us the FREEDOMS we enjoy today, not "peaceful anti-taxation and undue control from the King protests". Although I support those liberal lunatic's FREEDOM TO PROTEST, I wholeheartedly HATE how they abuse that ability to weaken the moral support of our soldiers who !ARE/WILL BE FIGHTING TO SPREAD AND SECURE FREEDOM for other countries!
Red Dawn
Elite Member
I think some of this Anti Americanism is a direct result of Bushes ill fated comments like "The Axis of Evil" and "You are either for us or against us", the latter almost sounding like it was taking from some speech given by the little Paper Hanger himself. Both comments came across as extremely provocative and rather shortshighted in retrospect. Bush and his Administrations diplomatic skills seem rather suspect at the moment, especially in comparison to that of his predecessor and his father.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
Are you saying that those who protest this war should take up arms against our Government because they don't agree with its policies just like the Revolutionaries did against King George and the Government that was in charge of the Colonies back then? That's exactly what you are saying though I doubt that's what you mean.
If the cause is right then those who support the cause shouldn't have any fears or any qualms regarding those who feel different and speak up unless your cause is suspect and you are afraid that it might not stand up under continued intense scrutiny.
freegeekss
Member
I agree fully. Bush has pissed of a lot of countries with these speeches. His administration even warned the Netherlands that military actions are possible if a US soldier would appear before an international court in The Hague!!!!!!!!!!! Can you believe it. He's threatening one of his most loyal European allies.
OutHouse
Lifer
Question for you war protestors. When Saddam gives his fellow terrorist buddies like Hammas 8oz of Serin or Anthrax and his terrorist buddies disperse the chemical in Tel-Aviv or Bethlehem, will you still be a war protester? He already pays the homicide bombers familys when ever little Muzaffar kills women and children on a city bus.
UltraQuiet
Banned
The fact that we are not at war with Iraq is, in fact, the proof that it is sabre rattling. We have enough forces in the area, and have had for a while, to do real damage to that country. That was not the point of my post. The point was that the thousands of people who are protesting the war are also saying that they want Saddam disarmed and gone. What are they doing about that? The fact that they are protesting the possible war is accomplishing exactly what. Giving Saddam the idea that the world is fractured in their resolve to enforce UN sanctions? Knowing that the security council resolutions are the bark of the toothless dog? The "axis of weasels" are doing that very thing by not putting troops in the ME. Putting them there is not giving them the order to attack. Two different things. I would very much like to see what the Iraqi "rebuttal" is at the next security council meeting if in fact every security council nation had troops in the ME, every country declared that Iraq must be disarmed and the people who are protesting the war showed support for their stated position of disarmament and removal. I would only be guessing but I bet the Iraqi rebuttal may very well be a map, with a bunch of red circles on it, showing the locations of those things they supposedly don't have.
DaveSohmer:
The fact that we are not at war with Iraq is, in fact, the proof that it is sabre rattling. We have enough forces in the area, and have had for a while, to do real damage to that country. That was not the point of my post. The point was that the thousands of people who are protesting the war are also saying that they want Saddam disarmed and gone. What are they doing about that? The fact that they are protesting the possible war is accomplishing exactly what. Giving Saddam the idea that the world is fractured in their resolve to enforce UN sanctions? Knowing that the security council resolutions are the bark of the toothless dog? The "axis of weasels" are doing that very thing by not putting troops in the ME. Putting them there is not giving them the order to attack. Two different things. I would very much like to see what the Iraqi "rebuttal" is at the next security council meeting if in fact every security council nation had troops in the ME, every country declared that Iraq must be disarmed and the people who are protesting the war showed support for their stated position of disarmament and removal. I would only be guessing but I bet the Iraqi rebuttal may very well be a map, with a bunch of red circles on it, showing the locations of those things they supposedly don't have.
--------------------------
This perfectly logical and rational. I agree that it would likely lead to more red circles. But I am of the opinion the admin has made the calculation that removing Saddam by force is better and is going to happen regardless of WMD. I do not think they are the issue and I think the Germans French and Chinese know it because they were told so. I think they do not agree and have only now to say so.
In other words I think there will be war with the possible exception of Saddam's removal by the people of Iraq because in that case our real intentions would just be too transparent if continued. But this os only how I read the situation. If I went along with saber rattling and supported the administration knowing in my heart that I really believed something else, and we attacked anyway even after elimination of WMD I wouldn't be able to look in the mirror. You have to come down somewhere. Might as well be what you believe.
The fact that we are not at war with Iraq is, in fact, the proof that it is sabre rattling. We have enough forces in the area, and have had for a while, to do real damage to that country. That was not the point of my post. The point was that the thousands of people who are protesting the war are also saying that they want Saddam disarmed and gone. What are they doing about that? The fact that they are protesting the possible war is accomplishing exactly what. Giving Saddam the idea that the world is fractured in their resolve to enforce UN sanctions? Knowing that the security council resolutions are the bark of the toothless dog? The "axis of weasels" are doing that very thing by not putting troops in the ME. Putting them there is not giving them the order to attack. Two different things. I would very much like to see what the Iraqi "rebuttal" is at the next security council meeting if in fact every security council nation had troops in the ME, every country declared that Iraq must be disarmed and the people who are protesting the war showed support for their stated position of disarmament and removal. I would only be guessing but I bet the Iraqi rebuttal may very well be a map, with a bunch of red circles on it, showing the locations of those things they supposedly don't have.
--------------------------
This perfectly logical and rational. I agree that it would likely lead to more red circles. But I am of the opinion the admin has made the calculation that removing Saddam by force is better and is going to happen regardless of WMD. I do not think they are the issue and I think the Germans French and Chinese know it because they were told so. I think they do not agree and have only now to say so.
In other words I think there will be war with the possible exception of Saddam's removal by the people of Iraq because in that case our real intentions would just be too transparent if continued. But this os only how I read the situation. If I went along with saber rattling and supported the administration knowing in my heart that I really believed something else, and we attacked anyway even after elimination of WMD I wouldn't be able to look in the mirror. You have to come down somewhere. Might as well be what you believe.
"I keep hearing from people who insist we should try "containment" of Iraq instead of war. They don't seem to have observed that we are where we are precisely because of twelve years of "containment".
...the alternative is to carry on with a sanctions regime which, because of the way Saddam Hussein implements it, leads to thousands of people dying needlessly in Iraq every year." Exactly. How odd that those who have long accused the West of murdering thousands of Iraqi babies because of sanctions now want to continue those sanctions indefinitely."
Link Here
Go to protest if you want to Iraqi citizens to continue to die.
The anti-war movement is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in my short lifetime.
...the alternative is to carry on with a sanctions regime which, because of the way Saddam Hussein implements it, leads to thousands of people dying needlessly in Iraq every year." Exactly. How odd that those who have long accused the West of murdering thousands of Iraqi babies because of sanctions now want to continue those sanctions indefinitely."
Link Here
Go to protest if you want to Iraqi citizens to continue to die.
The anti-war movement is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in my short lifetime.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
Frankly I could give a damn about Iraqi's. If they aren't willing to sacrifice for their freedom then why should our boys? If we attack Iraq we should do so with one goal in mind, to disarm it, to make sure that it will not have the capacity to re-arm and to make damn sure that all WMD's are accounted for and safely out of the reach of any Terrorist Organization. If the Iraqi's want to use this situation to free themselves then we should support them by all means. If not then they choose their own destiny.
Face it, there will never be anything but mistrust towards the west by the Islamic masses no matter what we do,history has shown that time and time again. To try and act like we are their protectors and friends is a waste of time. This doesn't mean that we should treat them as enemies, just that we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that they can be made to be our friends.
WinkOsmosis
Banned
I thought it was because of sanctions...
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Electrode
*sigh* So you're one of the brainwashed sheep that thinks expressing an opinion that differs from Bush's means you support Saddam... I see.
That is logically what it means. To not support the war means you prefer leaving Saddam in power to kill innocent civilians.
That is logically bullsh!t. I would rather Saddam was ousted and Iraq's ruling body dealt with, but I cannot support a war that isn't viewed as warranted by the UN.
Oh wait. Silly me. The UN has already approved an attack, right Charrison?
Ok we both agree he should be removed, but you are willing to do nothing if french vetos the action because they are protecting their economic dealing?
Bad things happen why good men stand by and do nothing.
I disagree, Red. Our rather expressive support for Israel has cost us support, but I think the average Arab in the street has conflicting attitudes toward us. I think we are admired in many ways. We make the mistake, I think, of supporting governments that oppress these same people in the street. We play politics and golbal strategery instead of standing up for principle. We've got the principles, we're squandering them.
ThePresence
Elite Member
I'm sure Saddam is quite proud of you. You might've given him a good laugh too.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Electrode
*sigh* So you're one of the brainwashed sheep that thinks expressing an opinion that differs from Bush's means you support Saddam... I see.
That is logically what it means. To not support the war means you prefer leaving Saddam in power to kill innocent civilians.
That is logically bullsh!t. I would rather Saddam was ousted and Iraq's ruling body dealt with, but I cannot support a war that isn't viewed as warranted by the UN.
Oh wait. Silly me. The UN has already approved an attack, right Charrison?
Ok we both agree he should be removed, but you are willing to do nothing if french vetos the action because they are protecting their economic dealing?
Bad things happen why good men stand by and do nothing.
Is it just you? Or does everyone who's biting their nails waiting for the first bombs to drop think that not going to war equals doing nothing?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
