Forum Closed
The forum is now to new posts. All the historical content is still available to browse.
if you are looking for musicians to play with, please view the Bands Seeking Musicians list, or use the Musicians Directory
You can use our pages on social media to connect:
popularity?!?
| Message Board > General Chitchat > popularity?!? |
| Cobra Commander | Why is it "cool" to be anti-war? I know so many people who are completely against the war, but do not have anything other than hippy morals to back it up. How many people will openly admit their support for the war? Those who do support it have always giving me a reason, and not just Saddam is bad. The complete opposite seems to be the situation for the anti-war 'elite'. 90% of the time you only get two answers 'Bush is bad/idiot/etc' or 'they are taking over Iraq for the oil'. Now I am not saying this is not true, but no matter how many websites you post here, or how pretty your grammer and spelling is, and how much Noam Chomsky you read, no one can be so stupid as to think that these are the only two reasons for the war. Now spitting out insults at people because of their opinions is stupid. But to get to my original point, it really does appear that alot (but not all of course) of the people who are against this war really have no opinion of their own on it. I have not seen one anti-war subject that started with someones own opinion. Have you seen any? There has only been a couple of reply anti-war posts stating to be peoples own opinions, but even they look like they are taking straight from a text book. Now, in this war there is a dictator named Saddam and him his regime need to be removed, which is something everyone can agree on I do believe. So far the death tolls on all sides including civillians is less than half the amount of children who die every day in africa of starvation. That in no way justifies war, but it also means that how can you say this war is bad because people will die when everyone of you could pitch in and save lives elsewhere in the world. If you are truely concerned at all with the Iraqi people, wouldn't you donate money and food to support those that need war time help? I can go on the internet and find just as many news articles saying that this war is not because of oil as I can find ones that say it does. This makes it even more important to think for yourself and draw your own conclusions. If your views of the war are based on heresay from friends or the occasional war highlights on the news, or worse yet internet drabble, then please do not try to argue with someone who actually has an opinion that was thought out. If you have a pretty news article, posting it under your name does not prove your point, it shows that you have no point of your own. Not everyone posts articles as their view, but alot of people think that because they managed to spell iraq in their search engine and then did the ever so complicated job of copy and paste that they are a person of intelligence. Now, there is a few other threads to argue the validity of ths war, and that is where those debates should take place. This thread is to debate if alot of people are being anti-war because it is "cool". Since before this war began, everyone was against it. If what they(coalition forces) are doing is so bad then how come NO other country has stepped up to stop them? The french President even made a statement that he hopes Coalition forces will win even though france was one of the biggest reasons Bush/Blair had to go in alone. If they find WOMD, public opinion will change drastically. That is my prediction and if it happens many of you on here will change your minds too, of course it is an 'if'. But right now, what do all your friends say? What do your colleagues interpret this war to be? If you are anti-war, why? Is it because you don't like CNN? Does it have anything to do with the fact that some of the big TV stars and musicians are against it? Do you think that because everyone around you says "this war is all because Bush is greedy and wants Iraq's oil" that it must be true? How many people out there are against this war because the americans are involved? No one here can deny that a good hack on the states has always been welcomed and revered. It is "cool" to be anti-american in canada, and most of the world, umm probobaly all of the world. How many people actually do not care about the war in any way but say that they are against it because that would be socially correct? Do you even know the justifications used by americans to validate invasion? Do you know what a UN resolution is? Do you know what article 1441 states? Did you know that Saddam has been publicly in open breach of that resolution for over ten years and only started to obey it apon threat of invasion? Go out for coffee with a friend and ask them these questions even if you completely agree with their opinion. Obviously some people have at least looked into it enought o be able to speak their own mind about this war, but I have not seen one person post an anti-war reply in their own words that even resembled a personal thought(about the war). Most anti-war posts seem to go something like this "If you like the war then you are an idiot. you are stupid". Please, could you at least give a reason why if someone is for this war why that makes them an idiot? I do not see how this makes someone change their view about war, it only strengthens my own pro-iraq-war opinions after reading responses to mine and the few others who have openly posted their ideas. I would like to say that this is mainly confined to live victoria, but here I have seen at least a few other people voice thier own opinions why they support the war here, unlike at the bar or at parties where it is totally unacceptable to say anything positive about the war. I read one post here where someone didn't agree with an article (s/he was against the war but thought the article was crap) so s/he asked people to give their own opinions on the article. Can you guess what happened? Not one person out of the next 50 posts said one word about the war, except for at the end where another article was posted that had nothing to do with the first one. Yup, everybody posted these retarded insults at this person and I bet not even half of them read the article, and definately on one had an opinion about the war, hell they couldn't even say that s/he was wrong, just that s/he was a faggot and stuff. If that kind of predjudism exists here, then imagine what it is like in High-schools, work places, hang-outs, or even homes. I can't give you evidence that Saddam has WOMD, but you can't give me proof that Bush is just doing this for oil. What you and I can do is think for ourselves and use facts to draw our own conclusions. We shouldn't post other peoples articles as our views, if you can not explain why the war is justified in your own words, then you really do not have an opinion. Nope you just have popular consensus. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:50am | ||
| Anonymous | Other articles are some one elses opinion, even if they aren't necessarily word for word the opinion of whomever posts them, they can, and often are, representitive of someones views, like a quote that sums things up. If you expect every person on here to come up with an "original" thought on the war that's asking a lot. This is not an original war, in fairness to those who don't support the war I have seen just as many insults coming from the other side on this board as you claim to have seen directed at pro-war people. Pro-war, that's what I don't get, you'll hide the actions behind political rhetoric and words like necessity and security but it still doesn't change the fact that in the real world it's families, men, women, and children being killed. This is what you support if you support the war. Rationalize it as much as you want, write another four paragraphs about how your opinion on the war is that anti-war people don't have enough opinions about it, have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe there is no need to dig any further? Not saying that's the case but maybe it is cut and dry. My opinion for you, and yes I am opposed to the war, is that this is about the currency in which oil is traded worldwide, a simple thing, but important enough that if the USD was cast aside the American economy would collapse and their way of life would deteriorate. This is also a Carlye Group thing where many companies stand to make huge amounts of cash once their in Iraq. This is about Israel, one just has to look up the amount of money that is sent there every year in loans, and then forgiven, to see that they do have some power over American foriegn policy. War does not make peace and if you believe that it does I will be unable to take you seriously. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 2:22pm | ||
| Troutbreath | I can't get past the idea that Bush, being a good Texan, has just decided to strap on his six-shooter and in true Western style has to go in and clear out the bad guys for the good of us poor townfolk. No matter how lofty his ideas might be this is not a hollywood movie. Do we want the US to be our Sheriff? I mean I can see Canada being a pretty good Chester to Bush's Marshall Dylan of we really want to go there. France could be Festus and maybe Isreal could play the role of Miss Kitty. Sounds absurd I know but I've really got wonder what goes on in Bush's Little brain. "Marshall Dylan, Marshall Dylan!" "What is it Chester" "Them Hussien's is riding into Dodge an' theys got some WOMD with em'" - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 2:42pm | ||
| Cobra Commander | Go over all of the previous war threads and you will see that for every ten posters hacking a pro-war guy, there is at least one insult returned. I only saw one pro-war poster instigate it. And that was against troutbreath I do believe. And there are a couple of threads where the poster is attacked and he does not even respond. I won't start my war debate on this thread. Actually, I haven't even really bothered doing much debating here for as soon as I started to explain myself on Live Vic, after the first post I got dozens of people who were trying to attack my intelligence and prove me wrong by calling me stupid. All that those twenty people accomplished was proving to me there was 20 more ignorant people here. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 2:54pm | ||
| Cobra Commander | And I have nothing against articles, everyone needs to gain information from somewhere, but you have to criticize the content and realize that is biased, even if you agree with it. No, what i do not like is that if you have your own opinion about the war, then it should only take you a short time to write up a post with your standing and as to why. If you need to look up an article so you can post it and say "I found this on the internet, so you are wrong!". Honestly, if you need to post an article in a debate, without being asked to backup your opinion, then you should not be involved in the debate. If you are unable to come up with a clear enough thought on the topic that you are arguing, then you should go away. I could go online, and since I know where I stand, and the reasons why, I could find an article that someone else wrote that reflects my views. But that isn't accomplishing anything, copy-and-paste in no way allows me to challenge my own way of thinking and it relays to others that I am too incapable to argue my own points. And since it is such a fad to be anti-war, I have a hard time believing that someone who posts an article actually has any understanding of it's real meaning, If you wrote something yourself, it is obvious, and then it shows to me that I should consider your opinion because you at least had to know something in order to respond with your own mind. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 3:04pm | ||
| Anonymous | I have to say that the people who posted articles on this board tended to only post the articles, offering them for your consideration. I think this is just as valid a form of expression as writing your own two line paraphrase about what you have learned from other sources, a position any of us who aren't there in Iraq, or in the American "war room" are in. I understand and respect what you're saying but there are going to be people against this and people for it, there are just as many website supporting this war and if you seek agreement with a pro-war stance than it is probably best to visit those sites and communicate with those people. The people on LiveVic seem, for the most part to be opposed to this war and I personally have read some insight commentary posted by some of the people here (both pro and, mostly, con. Sure there are some insults, but ignore them. It's all politcs, and the human creature may not be as complex as we all might like to believe we are, animal motives and insticts still drive our actions. To me this war shows how little humanity has evolved, it is easy, on occasion, because of the vast leaps in the evolution of technology, to equate that with the evolution of the speices but I don't think this is the case, the roman empire is a metaphor for the American empire which will, in time, be a metaphor for the one that follows. The "global village" is still dominated by greed and the lust for power, essential human emotions that used to garantee our survival, but the time will come when they also spell our destruction. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 3:23pm | ||
| Cobra Commander | Somehow I screwed up and posted this twice.... - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 3:36pm | ||
| Cobra Commander | Well, anon, I agree with you 'almost' fully. If someone starts a thread with an article to be considered, then I see nothing wrong with that, it should do more good than harm. But if you post an article for consideration, and someone considers it, and then they give you an opinion, and it is not what you wanted/expected them to say, do not insult them and call them stupid. There was one pro-war poster who criticized an article only to have the poster of the article start hacking away at the guy. But so far, I am very pleased with the responses I have recieved. There will always be ignorant people. There will probably always be at least one absolutely retarded poster on live Victoria. I have no problem ignoring the insults, but I can not ignore that people want to start talking about the war, as long as you feel and view the war exactly like the majority. I also agree with you somewhat about our evolution. I do not think humans are even close to being capable of peace. We continue to allow ourselves to be put in undesirable situations. War has evolved, and now violence and wars seem to be headed towards being based on profit, pre-emptive self preservation, and control. Less and less do we see wars and violence being based on religion, race, and pride. These things are still factors, but look how much the world has changed in the last 50 years alone. We are becoming more unified in our acceptance and knowledge of other cultures and beliefs. I think we are heading towards a world of peace, and I do not believe that true peace can be achieved by war. But I do not think we are ready for that yet, not until we truely are a global community. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 3:41pm | ||
| Cobra Commander | I could have said every one of my points in one paragraph if I had chosen. I instead too the time to explain the reasons behind me rabble. You do not need hard evidence to have an opinion, but you need to have a reason. I think that way too many people's reason for being anti-war is because it is the popular opinion. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 4:05pm | ||
| Anonymous | BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY DUDE, YOUR ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION, GRANTED, BUT BE CAREFUL YOU DONT GET YOUR SELF INTO SHIT MAN. LOL. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 4:11pm | ||
| SweetGrass | Cobra. If you are sending out a judgement like..".those who are anti-war are just doing it to be popular" no wonder you are getting negative responses. You have gone from adding some insightful thoughts to insulting those of us who are against the war because it is wrong, not just a popularity contest. I suspect mine will not be the only voice who responds to you over that. Have you given any thought to the fact that Bush might want to take on Irag because of the demise of the U.S. dollar since Iraq began using the euro dollar in 2000? There is a lot more to this war than oil of course, but what other hidden agendas will we discover? I personally am against this war because I don't trust the U.S are doing this for the FREE IRAQ propaganda they are preaching. I don't trust they will do the right thing for the people of Iraq and I think this is just the beginning of the war opn the Euro Dollar. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 4:24pm | ||
| Anonymous | CC, I agree with the points you made. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 4:31pm | ||
| Cobra Commander | No No Sweetgrass. I should stress things that I say more, since most people here will not pay careful enough attention to make their way threw a ramble written a little hastly. I said in the beginning "But to get to my original point, it really does appear that alot (but not all of course) of the people who are against this war really have no opinion of their own on it." I will clarify, there are lots of intelligent people out there that I would like to engage in debate with. There are people on both sides of the debate that I seriously disagree with, actually moreso on my side. One of the main things I was hoping for was so that the people who lay dormant without interjecting in on the threads would start to speak out. I am extremely surprised to see how many people here actually do think about what is going on. Judging from the previous threads, I thought maybe there would be only one or two people who I could later hear from. I also was a bit harsh in my original comment at times because I was pissed that everyone who thought like me was only met with idiotic and meaninless drivle. I do not blame people for being offensive to me if I offended them in some way, or if they actually had something intelligent to say when I was being very critical of their standing. I really meant this thread to be why people blindly follow and pretty much try to fall into clique's over this war. This whole "I am better than you because I don't like war" attitude that i am trying to get around. Of course, anti-war people who believe in hating war because it is cool, well, it pisses me off. But on the other side of things, people who are pro-war just because they like war, or because their group likes war are far more worse. I do not think I could even attempt to debate war with some one who enjoys it. It would be like arguing with a racist. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 5:01pm | ||
| Anonymous | Sweetgrass, you as well make a very good point that I also happen to agree with. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 5:45pm | ||
| Commander Cobra | The only problem with oil theories is that there are just too many possibilities. But, yes, since Venezuela will not let the US interfere with their civil war in exchange for oil promises, the only for the US dollar to stay at its over valued rate is to gain control of Iraq's oil feilds. Please understand that although I agree with this war, the americans are saving their asses at the same time. I also didn't want to get into it here, but the american dollar has been overrated for so long that it started to drop until the war came(remember the stock market problems as the US dollar was reaching its lowest value in a long time). By capturing Iraqi oil fields the americans will have extra money, but it will also be closely watched over by the UN. Venezuala, would have been the absolute turning point for the US dollar. The americans desperately need the current leader, Chavez, to stay in control, if he falls out of power then Venezuela will also switch to the euro. However, the government will not allow US support because they know what americans will want in return. Venezuela is also one of the worlds leading oil suppliers, but it has very signifcant monetary value because the oil is closer to the surface than in countries such as Iraq, making it so the oil is cheaper to drill. There is a very probable chance that there will be a coup, at which point, Iraq's oil will be one of the very few countries still trading by the american dollar. Since the american dollar has over a quarter higher market value than the economy actually can provide, the american dollar will drop signicantely. Now this is speculation as no one could possible know the americans true intentions: Americans will probably want to drill as much oil as possible from Iraq since it will only be under their control for a limited time. If they drill insanely large amounts and stockpil it until after Iraqi's regain control over their wells, americans can then threaten to flood the world market with all of the stockpiled oil if they do not revert to the american dollar. If the oil producing countries comply, the american dollar will increase in price. Now the other thing they could do is flood the world market and sell the oil at outrageously low prices. See, since the euro is now the mainstream for oil trading it too has the same fault as the american dollar, it is value does not support the actual economy of those countries. Since oil would be prcatically worthless, the Euro would drop massively in price. The two biggest manufacturing countries in europe are France and Germany. Since they still have a product based economy, if the euro drops even a little bit, they lose a lot of money. This is what I mean by trying to think. I have no proof of this future conclusion at all, but looking back on things I have drawn these possible conclusions. I have never found any source that has also drawn these conclusions. The facts are easily proving but not the motives, making it a theory forever. Speculation: Maybe it is just coincidence, but what were the two european countries most opposed to the war? Germany and France. Of course Germany can voice their opinion but due to resolutions set against them from WW2, they are politically reliant on the US. So what was the only country to promise to vito a new resolution? France. Russia also had that power but as soon as they were caught selling arms to the Iraqi's two days before the invasion, Russia has said it will take no action either for or against the US. Notice that in the UN resolution it is illegal to sell arms to the Iraqi regime, but russia has not and I am betting never will recieve retribution in exchange that they do not try to stop, or interfere with the war. the Russian government claimed that the people selling the arms were renegade soldiers and that they will be punished. Russia, without this incident could have stayed opposed to iraq occupation and together with France they would hold two seats on the UN security council and they could have stopped the war. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 6:10pm | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
Featured Events
Featured Historical Events
Featured Article
Newest Profiles
Thursday Night Jam at The Loft
Cancelled - no jam. Drummer's head wouldn't fit through the ...
229 Gorge Road East Victoria BC
Closed / Inactive
First Metropolitan United Fellowship Hall
Large hall in the First Metropolitan Church Building.
Open / Operational
