Someone explain the anti-war movement?

[UDT89]

I had a run in with an anti-war demonstrator today. The same guy on campus that was saying to bomb Afghanistan back when the towers went down. So of course i cant just walk by. I ask him, "Whats your solution to the worlds current problems?" And he went nuts. Yelling and all this nonsense. I never did get an answer from him, but that i am a blood thirsty Yankee.

Why do catastrophic events have to happen for people to realize that sometimes, talking out your problems sometimes just doesnt work? What should we do then? Pay Iraq an NK to stop? Should we tear up the Constitution? Should we make the national religion Islam? Should we sell our souls? If political interventions dont work, there isnt much that can be done with unreasonable people who have reasonable power.

I heard George Clooney on TV the other day talking about no war. What does George Clooney, as well as the others involved with anti-war, know about geopolitics and what Iraq and NK are capable of? Some people just open their mouths without thinking.

Trust me, i dont want a war either. I had a few friends get shipped out recently, and hope they come back safely. Believe me i wish they never had to go, but whats done is done. But what they are doing is something that is right and just. They are protecting you and me and the rest of the world from certain disaster. They need our support and encouragement. They dont need to feel that their entire homeland is against them too.

The world's safety is in jeopardy. Whether you admit it or not, whether you see it or not. Prevention is a hard thing to believe in, but sitting around waiting for an excuse to attack isnt practical. While evidence is lacking in Iraq, it?s overflowing in North Korea. Our priorities might be out of order, but we're on the right track.

So either way you slice it, war is inevitable given the situation in North Korea and their never ending threats. Whether its right or not in Iraq......i think the evidence will come out soon.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

ideally, i agree with the tree huggers, the only problem is that we can't just sit here and not do anything, because we will get our asses kicked if we never fight back. so i do support some military action. my problem with it is the correlation between dubya, his dad, oil, and iraq. it's not a coincidence. -- although i do feel that the world would be better off without saddam.

 

[xBopx]

If we believe that war is inevitable, it becomes inevitable. I'm completely anti war.

I hate war.

I believe that everyone would hate war if they knew its horrors. The sad idea is that sometimes there are things to hate that are worse than war.

No, I'm not in a position of power in order to be able to stop war or change the circumstances surrounding the possibily towards war - but I believe that it is possible for me build up to that.

Look at Ghandi.

Look at Anwar Saddat.

Look at Martin Luther King.

The truth is war is not inevitable.

 

[UDT89]

i dont think ghandi could turn off the koreans power plant.......no matter how hard he tried.

 

[xBopx]

Originally posted by: UDT89
i dont think ghandi could turn off the koreans power plant.......no matter how hard he tried.

Of course he couldn't - thats not how he worked. He would convince the millions of people that live in Korea to take over the plantusing non violent tactics. edit: and he would do it by convincing ONE person at a time.

 

[IGBT]

Has a lot more to do with a bunch of serial protesters led around by the nose by the marxist morons and the hollywood idiots. Many of these people have never graduated from high school or possibly graduated from drug rehab. And now suddenly they are experts on geopolitics. They need to be saved from them selves...

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
ideally, i agree with the tree huggers, the only problem is that we can't just sit here and not do anything, because we will get our asses kicked if we never fight back. so i do support some military action. my problem with it is the correlation between dubya, his dad, oil, and iraq. it's not a coincidence. -- although i do feel that the world would be better off without saddam.

So if gore was president, you would be more gung-ho. I think that assertion of GW using this to improve his own riches is outrageous. Do you actually believe that?

KK

 

[UDT89]

If its about the oil, why didnt we do it the FIRST time?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
ideally, i agree with the tree huggers, the only problem is that we can't just sit here and not do anything, because we will get our asses kicked if we never fight back. so i do support some military action. my problem with it is the correlation between dubya, his dad, oil, and iraq. it's not a coincidence. -- although i do feel that the world would be better off without saddam.

So if gore was president, you would be more gung-ho.

depends on how gore went about it. i don't like gore either. i can't really think of any politician i like.

I think that assertion of GW using this to improve his own riches is outrageous. Do you actually believe that?

i don't believe anything. i also don't rule anything out. seems obvious to me though, you really believe in him that much?

and -- i don't think its about riches, he's rich enough. it's about power.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Bop

Originally posted by: UDT89
i dont think ghandi could turn off the koreans power plant.......no matter how hard he tried.

Of course he couldn't - thats not how he worked. He would convince the millions of people that live in Korea to take over the plantusing non violent tactics. edit: and he would do it by convincing ONE person at a time.

Kim Jong Il would have him executed long before he could organize anyone. Ditto for Saddam. I'm guessing that the British colonial government at the time wasn't quite as insanely repressive as either Saddam or Kim Jong Il.

 

[0roo0roo]

examples like ghandi and dr king only work in situations where they can appeal to the goodness of their oppressors.

 

[UDT89]

Originally posted by: Bop

Kim Jong Il would have him executed long before he could organize anyone. Ditto for Saddam. I'm guessing that the British colonial government at the time wasn't quite as insanely repressive as either Saddam or Kim Jong Il.

Exactly. Times have changed, but the sane are still sane. Ghandi was dealing with a sane opponent, not raging lunatics like sadamm and kim jong

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
examples like ghandi and dr king only work in situations where they can appeal to the godness of their oppressors.

Some damn smart people coming to this thread tonight. Im impressed.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Bop
If we believe that war is inevitable, it becomes inevitable. I'm completely anti war.

I hate war.

I believe that everyone would hate war if they knew its horrors. The sad idea is that sometimes there are things to hate that are worse than war.

No, I'm not in a position of power in order to be able to stop war or change the circumstances surrounding the possibily towards war - but I believe that it is possible for me build up to that.

Look at Ghandi.

Look at Anwar Saddat.

Look at Martin Luther King.

The truth is war is not inevitable.

Look at Hitler

Look at Stalin

Look at any number of other tyrants.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Bop
If we believe that war is inevitable, it becomes inevitable. I'm completely anti war.

I hate war.

I believe that everyone would hate war if they knew its horrors. The sad idea is that sometimes there are things to hate that are worse than war.

No, I'm not in a position of power in order to be able to stop war or change the circumstances surrounding the possibily towards war - but I believe that it is possible for me build up to that.

Look at Ghandi.

Look at Anwar Saddat.

Look at Martin Luther King.

The truth is war is not inevitable.

After talking to several members of my family who have seen combat (one grandfather in WWII against Germany, one grandfather in Korea, and an uncle in Vietnam), I have come away with a reasonable understanding of their views. Basically, it goes like this: no one likes war. Actually, amend that to no one that is sane likes war. However, sometimes you have to fight. You've got to move up the hill and take out that MG 42. You have to take your plane down and drop your bombs on that ridgeline because your fellow Marines need some close air support or they are going to get FUBARed. No one enjoys these tasks. However, it is sometimes better than the alternative.

In 1939 I dont think there was any way that non-violence was going to stop Hitler. Applied years earlier, maybe. In an ideal world, violence would never be the best option, but, sadly, we live in a world with Barbara Striesand as a recording artist.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
ideally, i agree with the tree huggers, the only problem is that we can't just sit here and not do anything, because we will get our asses kicked if we never fight back. so i do support some military action. my problem with it is the correlation between dubya, his dad, oil, and iraq. it's not a coincidence. -- although i do feel that the world would be better off without saddam.

So if gore was president, you would be more gung-ho.

depends on how gore went about it. i don't like gore either. i can't really think of any politician i like.

I think that assertion of GW using this to improve his own riches is outrageous. Do you actually believe that?

i don't believe anything. i also don't rule anything out. seems obvious to me though, you really believe in him that much?

and -- i don't think its about riches, he's rich enough. it's about power.

I think to be questionable is okay, it's just that when you take out the rationality of reasoning then you can become paranoid. Take this for example, your parents(when you were still living with them) suspect you of smoking crack, you tell them you aren't, which you actually weren't. They ground you and won't let you out of the house. Is that right, not to you, it isn't. To them, they're right. I say let you out of the house. Keep you in if they have concrete evidence of wrong doing.

KK

 

[yellowperil]

My problem is not war itself (sometimes it's inevitable) but the pretenses surrounding this upcoming war. The war against al-Quida and bin Laden I can understand, because it was an attack on the United States. But this war against Iraq seems like a bunch of bullsh!t to me. Why did we even attack them in the first place? I bet not out of some humanitarian interest for Kuwait because countries have invaded each other in the past and we didn't intervene. The whole deal with WMDs confuses me too - we've got 'em, so do most countries in the world. We believe in a government of checks and balances as our founding fathers outlined in the Constitution. Yet on a global scale no one checks the United States' discretion about what we do about our WMDs. And the argument about Saddam persecuting his own people doesn't impress me because there are governments that slaughter their own people around the world that you never read about. Yeah, I know some consider people like me a variety of terms (pick: tree-hugger, hippie, pinko, commie, bleeding heart) but I don't give a damn. I was the same way before post-9/11 patriotic fever became popular JMO

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: yellowperil
My problem is not war itself (sometimes it's inevitable) but the pretenses surrounding this upcoming war. The war against al-Quida and bin Laden I can understand, because it was an attack on the United States. But this war against Iraq seems like a bunch of bullsh!t to me. Why did we even attack them in the first place? I bet not out of some humanitarian interest for Kuwait because countries have invaded each other in the past and we didn't intervene. The whole deal with WMDs confuses me too - we've got 'em, so do most countries in the world. We believe in a government of checks and balances as our founding fathers outlined in the Constitution. Yet on a global scale no one checks the United States' discretion about what we do about our WMDs. And the argument about Saddam persecuting his own people doesn't impress me because there are governments that slaughter their own people around the world that you never read about. Yeah, I know some consider people like me a variety of terms (pick: tree-hugger, hippie, pinko, commie, bleeding heart) but I don't give a damn. I was the same way before post-9/11 patriotic fever became popular JMO

i totally agree. the media demonizes saddam and iraq, but similar and/or worse things are happening, do happen, and have happened in lots of places, yet if there is no US agenda that conflicts with them, they get ignored.

 

[WalMart1564]

totally agree. the media demonizes saddam and iraq, but similar and/or worse things are happening, do happen, and have happened in lots of places, yet if there is no US agenda that conflicts with them, they get ignored.

so fooey u defend sadam husien and drunk driving man you sound soooooooo left wing liberal

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: yellowperil
My problem is not war itself (sometimes it's inevitable) but the pretenses surrounding this upcoming war. The war against al-Quida and bin Laden I can understand, because it was an attack on the United States. But this war against Iraq seems like a bunch of bullsh!t to me. Why did we even attack them in the first place? I bet not out of some humanitarian interest for Kuwait because countries have invaded each other in the past and we didn't intervene. The whole deal with WMDs confuses me too - we've got 'em, so do most countries in the world. We believe in a government of checks and balances as our founding fathers outlined in the Constitution. Yet on a global scale no one checks the United States' discretion about what we do about our WMDs. And the argument about Saddam persecuting his own people doesn't impress me because there are governments that slaughter their own people around the world that you never read about. Yeah, I know some consider people like me a variety of terms (pick: tree-hugger, hippie, pinko, commie, bleeding heart) but I don't give a damn. I was the same way before post-9/11 patriotic fever became popular JMO

i totally agree. the media demonizes saddam and iraq, but similar and/or worse things are happening, do happen, and have happened in lots of places, yet if there is no US agenda that conflicts with them, they get ignored.

So THEREFORE, we should ignore all bad events/dictators instead of just some.

I love your reasoning

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: yellowperil
My problem is not war itself (sometimes it's inevitable) but the pretenses surrounding this upcoming war. The war against al-Quida and bin Laden I can understand, because it was an attack on the United States. But this war against Iraq seems like a bunch of bullsh!t to me. Why did we even attack them in the first place? I bet not out of some humanitarian interest for Kuwait because countries have invaded each other in the past and we didn't intervene. The whole deal with WMDs confuses me too - we've got 'em, so do most countries in the world. We believe in a government of checks and balances as our founding fathers outlined in the Constitution. Yet on a global scale no one checks the United States' discretion about what we do about our WMDs. And the argument about Saddam persecuting his own people doesn't impress me because there are governments that slaughter their own people around the world that you never read about. Yeah, I know some consider people like me a variety of terms (pick: tree-hugger, hippie, pinko, commie, bleeding heart) but I don't give a damn. I was the same way before post-9/11 patriotic fever became popular JMO

i totally agree. the media demonizes saddam and iraq, but similar and/or worse things are happening, do happen, and have happened in lots of places, yet if there is no US agenda that conflicts with them, they get ignored.

So THEREFORE, we should ignore all bad events/dictators instead of just some.

I love your reasoning

the other situations are deemed to be not interfering with us, and the situation in iraq is. the only thing that may come out of this is a secure fuel supply.

 

[tbates757]

i don't believe anything. i also don't rule anything out..

You don't believe anything?

Well, it will take a bit to move on from that statement, but I think the so-called anti-war movement is based on a few principles, a) pure ignorance/denial of reality, b) misguided outrage within self, and/or c) the need to take a non-traditional view for the feeling of superiority (sort of a 'I am more enlightened than you' image). Well, for one I am totally anti-war, I hate war and I truely wish we could all get along, but I do realize the reality of the matter, that not every world leader on the planet shares my view (Saddam is a prime example of one that doesn't believe in human harmony). Removing Saddam will be a step forward for humanity, these ridiculous accustions of GWB's father and oil being motives don't even need to be seriously addressed.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: yellowperil
My problem is not war itself (sometimes it's inevitable) but the pretenses surrounding this upcoming war. The war against al-Quida and bin Laden I can understand, because it was an attack on the United States. But this war against Iraq seems like a bunch of bullsh!t to me. Why did we even attack them in the first place? I bet not out of some humanitarian interest for Kuwait because countries have invaded each other in the past and we didn't intervene. The whole deal with WMDs confuses me too - we've got 'em, so do most countries in the world. We believe in a government of checks and balances as our founding fathers outlined in the Constitution. Yet on a global scale no one checks the United States' discretion about what we do about our WMDs. And the argument about Saddam persecuting his own people doesn't impress me because there are governments that slaughter their own people around the world that you never read about. Yeah, I know some consider people like me a variety of terms (pick: tree-hugger, hippie, pinko, commie, bleeding heart) but I don't give a damn. I was the same way before post-9/11 patriotic fever became popular JMO

i totally agree. the media demonizes saddam and iraq, but similar and/or worse things are happening, do happen, and have happened in lots of places, yet if there is no US agenda that conflicts with them, they get ignored.

So THEREFORE, we should ignore all bad events/dictators instead of just some.

I love your reasoning

the other situations are deemed to be not interfering with us, and the situation in iraq is. the only thing that may come out of this is a secure fuel supply.

Sort of like Afghanistan?

Oops... we haven't developed that fuel line people were saying we were going to (and the only reason we went in there in the first place).

But seriously, why would we go into Iraq just for a secure fuel supply? Why not venezuela? We don't need Iraq for a secure fuel supply.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: yellowperil
My problem is not war itself (sometimes it's inevitable) but the pretenses surrounding this upcoming war. The war against al-Quida and bin Laden I can understand, because it was an attack on the United States. But this war against Iraq seems like a bunch of bullsh!t to me. Why did we even attack them in the first place? I bet not out of some humanitarian interest for Kuwait because countries have invaded each other in the past and we didn't intervene. The whole deal with WMDs confuses me too - we've got 'em, so do most countries in the world. We believe in a government of checks and balances as our founding fathers outlined in the Constitution. Yet on a global scale no one checks the United States' discretion about what we do about our WMDs. And the argument about Saddam persecuting his own people doesn't impress me because there are governments that slaughter their own people around the world that you never read about. Yeah, I know some consider people like me a variety of terms (pick: tree-hugger, hippie, pinko, commie, bleeding heart) but I don't give a damn. I was the same way before post-9/11 patriotic fever became popular JMO

i totally agree. the media demonizes saddam and iraq, but similar and/or worse things are happening, do happen, and have happened in lots of places, yet if there is no US agenda that conflicts with them, they get ignored.

So THEREFORE, we should ignore all bad events/dictators instead of just some.

I love your reasoning

the other situations are deemed to be not interfering with us, and the situation in iraq is. the only thing that may come out of this is a secure fuel supply.

Sort of like Afghanistan?

Oops... we haven't developed that fuel line people were saying we were going to (and the only reason we went in there in the first place).

But seriously, why would we go into Iraq just for a secure fuel supply? Why not venezuela? We don't need Iraq for a secure fuel supply.

hm, yeah, i suppose we do get alot from venezuela, saudi arabia, other places etc. the oil thing was a cheap jab by me, for a lack of a better theory. i don't know what bush's deal is, maybe he just wants to be a cowboy. maybe (DEFINITELY) there are things we dont know that are influencing this. who knows. i just don't see the importance of the 'war on iraq'.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: yellowperil
My problem is not war itself (sometimes it's inevitable) but the pretenses surrounding this upcoming war. The war against al-Quida and bin Laden I can understand, because it was an attack on the United States. But this war against Iraq seems like a bunch of bullsh!t to me. Why did we even attack them in the first place? I bet not out of some humanitarian interest for Kuwait because countries have invaded each other in the past and we didn't intervene. The whole deal with WMDs confuses me too - we've got 'em, so do most countries in the world. We believe in a government of checks and balances as our founding fathers outlined in the Constitution. Yet on a global scale no one checks the United States' discretion about what we do about our WMDs. And the argument about Saddam persecuting his own people doesn't impress me because there are governments that slaughter their own people around the world that you never read about. Yeah, I know some consider people like me a variety of terms (pick: tree-hugger, hippie, pinko, commie, bleeding heart) but I don't give a damn. I was the same way before post-9/11 patriotic fever became popular JMO

i totally agree. the media demonizes saddam and iraq, but similar and/or worse things are happening, do happen, and have happened in lots of places, yet if there is no US agenda that conflicts with them, they get ignored.

So THEREFORE, we should ignore all bad events/dictators instead of just some.

I love your reasoning

the other situations are deemed to be not interfering with us, and the situation in iraq is. the only thing that may come out of this is a secure fuel supply.

Sort of like Afghanistan?

Oops... we haven't developed that fuel line people were saying we were going to (and the only reason we went in there in the first place).

But seriously, why would we go into Iraq just for a secure fuel supply? Why not venezuela? We don't need Iraq for a secure fuel supply.

hm, yeah, i suppose we do get alot from venezuela, saudi arabia, other places etc. the oil thing was a cheap jab by me, for a lack of a better theory. i don't know what bush's deal is, maybe he just wants to be a cowboy. maybe (DEFINITELY) there are things we dont know that are influencing this. who knows. i just don't see the importance of the 'war on iraq'.

Well, to be quite frank I don't care what Bush's reasons are. He is an idiot anyway. I am just concerned with whether the action would be good or not.

I think it would be, but I would prefere a UN resolution.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: tbates757

i don't believe anything. i also don't rule anything out..

You don't believe anything?

Well, it will take a bit to move on from that statement,

haha

seriously, i don't believe anything. makes it a bit hard to try to nail me in an argument doesnt it?

i just think that people think too small, i like to think BIG! people limit themselves and their ideas and thoughts -- when the truth is, humans as a whole don't know jack about what's going on in the universe we're hurling around in. there are no answers, only more questions. "facts" are nothing more than things that lots of people agree on.

but I think the so-called anti-war movement is based on a few principles,
a) pure ignorance/denial of reality,

being out of touch with reality, perhaps, but what is reality anyways?
b) misguided outrage within self, and/or
outrage would cause one to be anti-war?

c) the need to take a non-traditional view for the feeling of superiority (sort of a 'I am more enlightened than you' image).

i hear that same garbage from windows users sometimes, referring to "linux nerds", for lack of a better widely comprehended term. i'm sure there are people out there doing these things to be cool or superior in their own minds, but that's lame, and i can't say that has anything to do with why i do anything i do.

Well, for one I am totally anti-war, I hate war and I truely wish we could all get along, but I do realize the reality of the matter, that not every world leader on the planet shares my view

i _totally_ agree.

(Saddam is a prime example of one that doesn't believe in human harmony).

how much do you really know about saddam? how much do you know about iraq and their society?

Removing Saddam will be a step forward for humanity,

i agree

these ridiculous accustions of GWB's father and oil being motives don't even need to be seriously addressed.

coincidence perhaps, perhaps not. a serious accusation deserves a serious response, does it not? i'm not just spamming or trolling here. i have some extreme views, but some of them aren't even that dear to me. i just believe what makes the most sense to me at the moment, and alot of times i bring up extreme things for the sake of getting a good convo going, and getting some intelligent ideas in the mix, rather than the usual 16 year old inspired junk that gets thrown around in ATOT. make an argument i cant refute