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 All the historical content is still available to browse.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:
GIJOE
| Message Board > General Chitchat > GIJOE |
| 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 1:21pm | ||
| Anonymous | It sounds like you're pretty frustrated about not finding critical reasoning for anti-war positions expressed on livevic. You might have more luck finding the kind of discussion you want if you looked in places that aren't geared toward entertainment. What you're doing with posts like the one you just made is like trying to give a power point presentation at an open mic night. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 2:06pm | ||
| Cobra Commander | I know, it is pretty futile. I don't want to debate my position on the war here, I was just hoping to find out reasons why it is cool to hate war. Last night i got into a huge arguement with a pile of my buddies because they were all freaking out at me for agreeing with the war. When I asked them how long should we give saddam to comply with article 1441, they replied with "what is that?". It became obviousoly apparant that there is a complete lack of understanding at the roots of this war. then i came on to live vic this morning and I saw a thread on war and read it and it was ridiculous. I went back and read through aprox. a dozen threads on the topic. Everytime someone gave an opinion about why they are not against the war, everyone attacks them. Anyone who has been paying actual attention to the war would have been able to at least reply with "well I heard this..." or "IMHO..." but instead everyone says "you are goof and you are wrong". Is it just me but even though I disagree with alot of what those pro-war posters were saying, at least they said something. There was one thread were somebody was asking the people to think about this outrageos pro-war theory, there was arguing and insulting back and forth, and even though this person was outnumbered no one would even dispute what the poster said, even though the poster asked repeatedly. Then the argument ends with someone posting an anti-war theory that had nothing to do with the original topic, and was obviously a cut-and-paste job. It just amazed me that there is still so many sheep in this world. So I went off in a ramble and I am never going to shut-up the ignorant people on live vic, but maybe someone who actually has a brain and is anti-war can share there thoughts on future threads about this war. Honestly, I have not talked with or read a post by someone in Vic that was anti-war with a valid comment. In many ways it reaffirms my belief that I am right in my conceptions about this war. If only stupid people are against it, what does that say? - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 2:24pm | ||
| Anonymous | It's this way for me: I wouldn't want to fight in that war, so I think it would be hypocritical of me to suggest that anyone else is obliged to. For me, taking a firm pro war stance would mean I should join up, and not expect someone else to do the dirty work. I've got family (american) fighting in Iraq. If they don't make it back, I'm not convinced they will have died out of necessity. I think its a pretty serious business, so the question for me about war remains "why", and not "why not". As far as protest at large, war means killing people, which is not something a lot of folks do around here, so it makes sense to me that someone arguing a pro-war stance could meet with a lot of moral objections. I think that economic and political interests are definately at stake here, even if one specific aspect (like oil, the most popular anti-war magic bullet theory) is not the sole cause. A conflict of interest doesn't mean someone has no good intentions whatsoever, but just that his credibility is compromised. In this case, I think the US's credibility is severely compromised, so that raises some questions. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 3:21pm | ||
| Anonymous | I don't agree. To use your words: Honestly, I have not talked with or read a post by someone in Vic that was *PRO-war* with a valid comment. In many ways it reaffirms my belief that I am right in my conceptions about this war. If only stupid people are against it, what does that say? And I believe that I speak for many. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 3:25pm | ||
| Cobra Commander | Yes, I do believe you do speak for many. I think this is hilarious, I just wrote a post about people unable to give reasons why they are anti-war because they actually do not have any knowledge on the subject. I discussed about how I would and will gladly listen to your opinion(s) and amusingly enough, once again someone can't say something in their own words. I expect much drabble to come, after all, if you don't have an opinion use an insult. It is the Live Victoria way. If someone can convince me that this war has more cons then benefits, I will change my view. This may very well happen, but I highly doubt that it will be on this site. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 3:27pm | ||
| Cobra Commander | Somehow I screwed up and posted this twice.... - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 3:37pm | ||
| Anonymous | But what about article 1436? Do you have a comment about that one? - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 4:01pm | ||
| jason User Info... | I've (over) posted on this topic more than a few times and I think my resons are fairly clear and concise. Of course your right when you say there are more than 2 reasons for the War. One of the two you stated (OIL)is definately a the factor involved, but not the only one. All you have to do is look at the Bush administrations top aids and their previous (and current) employers/benefactors to see the oil connection. To say this "war" has nothing to do with oil is demonstrateably stupid, but to say its all about oil is equally stupid. For you to say that the fact that thousands die everyday from starvation should somehow change the opinion of people who are anti war is laughable (insert me laughing at you right here). I think this get's right to the heart of the problem here. You seem to lack the ability to understand cause and effect. Why do think countries become to poor to feed their populace? Where has their social infrastructure gone? Give up yet? The answer is War! And who sells these countries weapons? And who vetoes any meaningful resolution in the UN security council to deal with these conflicts when they arise? The same group that are now bombing Iraq in the name of Democracy and freedom. "Do you know what a UN resolution is?" Yes be both obviously know what one is, unfortunately most don't bother to look at a history of UN resolutions. You can find many reputable websites outlining it. It's funny, you see Israel and the United States amoung many others blatantly ignoring UN resolutions but you don't see them getting bombed into the last century. The fact that the war supporters would even use anything UN related to bolster their arguement is pathetically hypocritical. So the first peice of advice for you is to find a record of UN resolutions and security council voting. Only a fool could miss the obvious pattern that emerges. This is why I call pro war folks stupid. Just like you they make some generalized derogatory remarks about the anti war camp as if thats a coherent arguement for war. Yes, the anti war camp has as many uninformed fools as the pro war camp, but atleast the anti war people have the common sense to realize that killing innocent people for any cause is unacceptable, no matter how many ways you try to use the "means to an end" arguement. You know what I mean. Like when people say, from the comfort of their living room, "the price of democracy isn't cheap". "Please, could you at least give a reason why if someone is for this war why that makes them an idiot? " I just did. You want to know if Saddam has chem/bio/mass-destruction weapons? Ask the Germans and the Americans. They are the ones that sold him everything. When Iraq handed over their weapons declaration why do you think the Americans had to edit it before it was released? Like I said in another post, the pro war camp breaks down into two parties. 1)Those who are making money off of the conflict (Boeing, Lockheed-Marti. or anyone attached to the Pentagon or folks like Conrad Black or Rupert Murdoch) or 2)those whose opinions are shaped by people like Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch. Okay their you go. No copy and paste articles. Just my poorly spelt rambling. One more thought: And why is it that every single person who is pro war does so anonymously? if your so sure of your opinion why are you afraid to put your name on it? and yes, it does make a differnce. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 4:06pm | ||
| Anonymous | - It's this way for me: I wouldn't want to fight in that war, so I think it would be hypocritical of me to suggest that anyone else is obliged to. For me, taking a firm pro war stance would mean I should join up, and not expect someone else to do the dirty work. I've got family (american) fighting in Iraq. If they don't make it back, I'm not convinced they will have died out of necessity. I think its a pretty serious business, so the question for me about war remains "why", and not "why not". As far as protest at large, war means killing people, which is not something a lot of folks do around here, so it makes sense to me that someone arguing a pro-war stance could meet with a lot of moral objections. I think that economic and political interests are definately at stake here, even if one specific aspect (like oil, the most popular anti-war magic bullet theory) is not the sole cause. A conflict of interest doesn't mean someone has no good intentions whatsoever, but just that his credibility is compromised. In this case, I think the US's credibility is severely compromised, so that raises some questions. - Sun, 6 Apr 1:21pm Oh. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 4:12pm | ||
| Cobra Commander | Actually I did post under my real name when I was arguing my points those many moons ago. The fact that I saw people that I am friends with posting hacks at the other pro-war posters has made me decide to go anon for this one. I will gladly let my identity be known and then I will gladly debate my feelings towards the war. Right now I want the people who wouldn't say anything because they know me to post their opinions and their impressions and friendships with me will not intefere with their comments. Ok now back up to buddy from 1:21. I know people that are fighting in wars right now that are very very close to me. I know someone who is in conflict right now that is way more severe than Iraq, but the media has stopped covering the Bosnian crisis. Over 300 000 civillians have been genocided to death by execution in the last ten years. Well, that is the count so far, from the mass graves that have been uncovered. This got alot of news in the mid 90's but now it is all but forgotten. Two people who are very close to me leave to head out to N.Korea because of the probable conflict there. I almost joined the armed forces, I even applied but due to situations beyond my control I have responsibilites which require me here. Everyone I know in the military understand one thing, you are a soldier. if you are not willing to fight and die for your country, then do not join. And the US's credibility has been gone for a very long time. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 4:12pm | ||
| Anonymous | I'm just pleased about the amount of times that I've heard/seen the words "popular opinion" used together with anti-war, and that its seen as "cool". I tend to get VERY concerned hearing pro-war sentiments getting bantered around so heartlessly and foolishly, and hearing that I'm in the majority for a fucking change is v e r y reassuring. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 4:22pm | ||
| Cobra Commander | Also I didn't want to debate my opinion here but I will clarify a couple of things for you. I used to be against this war, hell, when I was younger I believed that total pacifism was the way to go, and one day it will be. I am not pro-all-war, I am pro-Iraq-war. I am not going to go into why, not here. I also seem to be getting the impression from people that because I am pro-war that I do not see the immense downsides to it. I do not want innocent people to get killed. In my first post I had my mind racing so I failed to clarify some points. I guess you can say that maybe I grew up a little bit differently, but everyone dies, it is our destiney from the second we are born. I was starting to mention that even if I was anti-war like most of you, none of us could stop this war. But if the death of others is that big of a deal, everyone of you could help save a life elsewhere. You do not need to send starving children money, you do not need to help through a charity. but you could, even a little bit can make the biggest differences. I have done some work with charities, and even a coat drive we did helped save lives. Each person on this website could sacrifice $20 a month, thats a case of cheap beer at the CBW. that donation would save someones life. If people dying makes the war bad, then every human being on earth that denies sharing some of what they have is even more evil. A soldier at least sees the person they kill. I know it is not your fault that people are starving to death, freezing, thirsty, and disease ridden. You don't even make enough money to go out and buy the stuff you want right? Why don't the rich people give up some of their money to help? Some rich people do, just like some poor people give alot to help others. You can't save the lives of the people getting killed in Iraq, but you could save the life of a child in a third world country. You won't give up one case of beer a month, when you have known about people starving to death for most of your life. How long have you known about this war? How many threads are there about helping hungry people? Is it "cool" to send money to charities? Your buddies may even make fun of you for it, they will say it is a scam and a rip off with absolutely no proof and without even an article. No one here has the right to say that this war is wrong because innocent people will die. More innocent people are going to die today for NOTHING then the entire Iraqi conflict. No war, no reason, there lives will not be affected by the outcome, they were just born in the wrong country. How many lives have you tried to save today? - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 4:23pm | ||
| Cobra Commander | In response, when I use the word "cool", I due it because it is an acurate description for doing something because everyone else does it. I could also use the word "sheep", but that more refers to the people and not the motivations behind them. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 4:57pm | ||
| Mr CaCO3 | Pro-war 1. The state of Iraq will probably be better off 10 years down the road because of this. 2. WAR SELLS!! YAY CAPITALISM!! (little joke there). Antiwar 1. Bombing Iraq gives Iraq incentive to bomb America (if they do in fact have the means of accomplishing this) 2. There was no evidence supporting the claim that Iraq is harbouring weapons of mass destruction. 3. thousands of innocent civilians are being killed in bomb attacks, due to carelessness on the US's behalf. How is this in any way restoring peace? It's just causing needless suffering. Sure Saddam makes a lot of people suffer, but the US is doing the job far more efficiently in the span of a few weeks than he could ever do in the remainder of his political career. 4. Whatever happened to good, clean, political assassination? 5. What about all the other countries under totalitarian rule? Will the US wage war against China, half the countries of africa, south america? Where does it end? He might as well wage war against the entire world if he wants to be rid of all possible threats (by US logic) 6. If anything, the act of the US violating UN policy and attacking Iraq unprovoked is simply going to promote more hatred towards the US. They can't expect to throw their weight around everywhere and not have anyone retaliate. All it takes is one pissed off dictator with a biological/chemical/nuclear weapon at his disposal. 7. Does the US not own any "weapons of mass destruction"? The US: Hmmmm, well Iraq has lots of bombs, and that is threatening to us. We should be the only country allowed to have bombs since we are the good guys. *thoughtful pause* LET'S BLOW THE SHIT OUT OF IRAQ! -Now what sort of message does this send out to our children? Surely you see the hypocrisy of this whole situation. 8. Of the thousands of children whose parents have been murdered by US troops, there are inevitably going to be several who decide to become terrorists who want payback as a result. This is merely spawning more contempt and anger from the Iraqi people towards the US. Saddam doesn't need to convince anyone in his country that the US is evil anymore. From their point of view this is now self-evident. How would you feel towards any country if they decided one day to annihilate your homeland? I'm sure you'd be pretty resentful. 9. If the US does overthrow Saddam's regime and takes his place, there's bound to be social upheaval, and more violence. 10. 1441 states that no country is allowed to go to war without the UN's permission (as the US is currently doing) which puts them in the same light as Iraq as far as breaching UN policy goes. Anyways, there's my view of both sides. I think the cons by far outweigh the pros, personally. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 5:00pm | ||
| Anonymous | Is that "mr chalk"? - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 5:12pm | ||
| Anonymous | "How long have you known about this war? How many threads are there about helping hungry people? Is it "cool" to send money to charities?" Fair enough. Hunger and poverty are these background disasters that tend to be shrugged off with a "yeah, it's dog eat dog out there" kind of resigned attitude, whereas the Iraq war is *BIG NEWS* so people seem to get more excited. And by the way, there's plenty of legitimate volunteer work out there for those who don't want to part with there cheap beer $. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 5:26pm | ||
| brandon User Info... | i'm all for this war.... because i dont have to fight. Fuck sadam. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 5:28pm | ||
| Commander Cobra | "3. thousands of innocent civilians are being killed in bomb attacks, due to carelessness on the US's behalf. How is this in any way restoring peace? It's just causing needless suffering. Sure Saddam makes a lot of people suffer, but the US is doing the job far more efficiently in the span of a few weeks than he could ever do in the remainder of his political career." Ok, yes innocent people will die from bombings. Saddam was on TV today saying that the americans were being fought off and that the capital is secure. Meanwhile Coalition troops were on the roads in Baghdad, preparing to take the capital. After saying that he continued to talk about the heavy american casualties they inflicted when americans first reached Basra, saying they had killed thousands. When coalition troops first arrived at Basra 2000 Iraqi troops surrendered without a fight including an Iraqi general. Saddam then went onto say taht 625 civilians had been killed so far in this war. Now since he lied out of his ass about everything else, what are the chances that he is not exagerating the civilian deaths to get more support? I would say slim to none, but for arguments sake I will accept this number as I have no way of disproving it and neither do coalition forces. That is significantely lower than your total. "4. Whatever happened to good, clean, political assassination?" Saddam is in his bunker and it is only accessable by a small nuclear bomb or a ground assault as the bunker is strong enough to resist any missles sent by the CF. After this your questions just get less and less arguable. The US was able to attack Iraq under UN law and it is the only time that the states has ever made a preemptive invasion. You obviously have not looked into anything so you pretty much are the person I want to find out about. Why do you think that things you said are true, you might have been able to debate some of your points, but you can't argue if you don't know. Article 1441 was created so that the gulf war would be over and no more deaths would occur. Parts of that resolution state the terms under which Saddam can remain in control over Iraq. WOMD was ONE of the terms, and the one that the states would fear the most because if Saddam had them he would probably use them. (this is why it is called a preemptive strike) Weapon Inspectors were supposed to be allowed full, uncontrolled access to any part of Iraq to search for WOMD and other weapons not allowed. When the US called the UN to go into action it had been over 10 years since the resolution and Saddam had not allowed any weapon inspectors into the country. After Bush moved troops into the area, Saddam started letting them go to some locations. The weapons inspectors were able to find 2 missles aimed at Isreal that were way over the distance allowed by the UN Res. These are all facts, I have not changed any of their context's nor have I giving my arguements for war, but do not put down some one elses opinion when you know nothing. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 5:47pm | ||
| Mr CaCO3 | I find it hard to believe that as little as 625 civilians have died as a result of all this, and I think you are gullible to swallow that. I think that's more likely Saddam's way of reassuring his people that things are looking more optimistic for Iraq than they really are. "do not put down some one elses opinion " I didn't put down anybody's opinion, I stated my own. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and stop being so hypocritical (though I suppose this explains partly why you would be inclined to support this "war for peace" concept). Why would you take my perspective on the Iraqi situation as a personal attack on you? Because it opposes your views? Perhaps the reason no one will debate this with you is because of the self-righteous know-it-all attitude you have. "You know nothing." Nobody can know anything aside from what they have heard through the media, and we all know how reliable the media is, or at least you probably do. Nobody else here does, right? Anyways, I'm not going to start spewing off a few dozen "facts" I've read about, because if you want those you could read all those articles you despise people posting. Opinions and knowledge are two distinctly different things (you seem to be getting the two mixed up, so I'm just clarifying for your benifit). I don't claim to know anything, but I can see history repeating itself here, and I can think of many probable outcomes of this war that are more negative than positive. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 7:08pm | ||
| Commander Cobra | Mr.CaCo3. One of the points of this thread is that I do not believe that people who do not understand the situation or the circumstances surrounding this war should make claims like the ones you made. It is misinformation, you did not even know what a resolution was, yet you stated it like you understand it. I will give you credit for at least not trying to insult people, but why do you feel the urge to tell people that your statement is based on fact when it is not at all. You have not researched the topic, and by spreading lies you are doing more harm than any good. If you could have come up with a list based on facts and the conclusions you draw from them then that is an opinion. Making up facts is not an opinion at all, it is just lying. See what I am trying to get at with you is that for some reason you have a strong anti-war setiment, but you need to tell lies to give reason to your beliefs. If someone was anti-war because they believe in total pacifism, then that is a great reason. If someone told me that they were against the war because they think under any circumstances war should not take place. If you think that sometimes war is an option, even if it is the only one, then you need to know about the war before you can condem those who are participating in it. The only things Saddam has going for him is defending Baghdad by situating soldiers in buildings and keeping as many civilians in the area as possible. You see as long as there are people in Baghdad then the soldiers are going to have to go door to door fighting for control. They can't just bomb a pile of civilians, those are the people they are trying to save. The attack on Baghdad is going to have heavy casualties, as fighting in a densely populated area would. The Coalition Forces will also recieve alot of casualties as a result of home combat. If you think about it, despite movies and books, if your a soldier, and a couple of soldiers are using children as shields, are you going to pull taht trigger? No, you wouldn't not unless that was the only for you to escape the situation. I am willing to bet there is more than one soldier that has already died becaude they were put into that situation and could not open fire on children or civilians. Now, if there is enough heavy casualties among civilians and the world has a giant outcry as thousands of civilian corpses get put television, and the images are all over the internet, the UN would be forced to make the CF withdraw. The more Iraqi civilians killed, the better it is for Saddam. Can you understand this? So, please tell me why you decided to make stuff up, instead of just either looking it up first, or staying out of something you have very little knowledge of? If we were having a debate about quantum physics and how light reflects even when there is no reflectable surfaces in a vacuum, and you had nothing more than a vague idea of what was happening, would you make something up just to be heard? Or did you get your information by listening to someone else who did not know what they were talking about? What if someone actually thought you knew what was going on and took that as fact? They too would be completely misinformed about the war. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 7:30pm | ||
| A*Funk | Sorry, didnt get time to read the last response, but this quote from cobra commander (cute name hun) struck me as odd. "The US was able to attack Iraq under UN law and it is the only time that the states has ever made a preemptive invasion." Ok, so #1 the UN Charter specifically condemns wars of agression. Mr.Bush has argued that this is a war of self defence on the grounds of Iraq's WMD, and the possibility that these will be deployed against Americans. Lengthy debate since the new year at the UN Security Council has clearly illustrated that it is not the opinion of the UN that Iraq poses a clear threat to any population but its own. #2, that the United States has never "made a preemptive invasion"... BULL SHIT. Mexico, Hawai'i, British North America (defeated), and more recently, Cuba (defeated), Panama, Nicaragua, and now Iraq. I would also like to take issue with an earlier sentiment, "whatever happened to good old fashioned political assasination?" as an alternative solution to destroying the entire country of Iraq. After repeated attempts at murdering the President of Cuba with no success, and successfully murdering the President of Congo (later renamed Zaire, now Congo again after the bloodiest civil war the 20th Century has seen) but completely losing its control of the central african region as a result, the U.S. decided to officially ban such acts during, as I recall, the Carter administration in the late '70's. Instead, they played a rather inept game of political chess with the Soviet Union in the newly decolonized states of the Southern world, providing support (both political and military) to brutal dictators who, rather than standing for the American ideals of freedom and democracy, were more often than not simply the only viable alternative to a (usually democratically elected, like Salvador Allende) "socialist" government. Denying the scourge of communism to countries of the developing world was for the United States a more important goal than providing peace and security, or respecting democracy in many cases. This sad and unfortunate policy led to many of the problems associated with the 31 wars of the late 20th Century, only 3 of which were waged between countries; similarly, it led to the installation of, well, Saddam Hussein himself. Which is why I'm anti-war. It seems, cobra, that your desire on this thread is to understand why so much of the country, and indeed the world, is anti-war. The above reasons, as well as the implicit economic and colonial ones, are the motivation for the peace-loving people of the earth to unite in unprecendented numbers against further agression in Iraq, and indeed anywhere else in the axis of evil. It is not, by and large, antiamericanism, at least from my perspective. An unfortunate deficiency of the English language (for more about linguistics, ontology, and though, please read some Noam Chomsky) is our ability to say, in the words of MP Carolyn Parrish, "I hate those American bastards" and mean, instead of the neighbourly and hard working American people, the uncooperative and hegemonic American administration. America has an important part to play in the development of a peaceful and secure world, as we saw in the more multilateralist Clinton administration. 1993-2001 saw Mr. Clinton's administration broker some important peace deals - the '95 Dayton accords on the Balkans, the Northern Ireland peace initiatives (which, for the first time in a WHILE, saw the US broker democracy abroad, by instituting a Parliament of North Ireland) and peace talks on Israel-Palestine, which formalized in the international mind the idea of a sovereign Palestinian state. I am not naieve enough to believe that these efforts alone are either 100% effective or possible to realize without the support of military force. But I do believe that they are positive steps towards realizing a more peaceful and secure global community in the 21st century. The people of the world realize this. We saw the improvements of the 90's and dared to hope that globalization of economies and cultures would produce a more cooperative and peace-building international community. Our opposition to war rises out of fear that the latest US administration is instead focussed on building itself up as a hegemonic power centre, without regard to promoting the enrichment of people before the enrichment of markets. We suspected a change of attitude on Jan. 21, 2001. Our fears were given focus with the events of september 11, 2001. While we were disgusted by the inhumanity of the acts committed, we couldn't help but notice the changing tone of the dialogue coming from Washington. Terrorism now provided a reason to change a government with war. It started a policy of military enforcement of security, in contrast to the cooperative liberalization we all hoped would take hold in the new millenium. The war in Iraq is now one step further down a path we see no end to. As our Prime Minister said three weeks ago in Question Period, (paraphrase- i don't have the exact quote) "who is next? Can Mr. Bush give me a list of the countries we need to overthrow, before the world is safe? When does it stop?" That is our fear, that is doesnt stop, like it never did during the Cold War, like it never quite did during the 90's. With the Soviet Union gone, the American state needs an enemy that it can fight in perpetuity, to reaffirm its identity and sovereignty in the world. Terror has filled that void, and the perpetuation of fear will inevitably lead to the concentration of power and the militarization of global society. This is something we had hoped to avoid. This is why we are anti-war. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 7:48pm | ||
| A*Funk | Oh, and since i've now had a chance to read the last post, I'd just like to point out that Mr. Calcium Carbonate is doing the right thing by trying to participate in discussion. His/her facts may not be perfect, but the means we have of researching the "truth" in such a wide world are limited and imperfect. Furthermore, there are such a range of "facts" that creating any narrative for oneself involves negating and devaluing some facts in preference for others, creating an incomplete perspective for everyone implicated in the system. The great virtue of democracy is its ability to reflect a diversity of narratives (views), thereby approximating the totality of real truth. Listen to him/her, s/he might be illuminating something you've missed. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 8:51pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | I did not debate his conclusions that could have been open to interpretation. I would have enjoyed debating them, but like I said I do not believe he has the understanding as of yet to do this. I actually agree with him on his first point, but they have been the target of terrorist attacks for a long time now, and will continue to be wether or not this war took place. And one of the main reasons that the US is claiming to justify the attacks is to stop the real big bombs from landing on the white house lawn. His second point is worthless to argue because although the US claims to have gathered evidence through their intelligence, they will not share this information as it may compromise their security. It does seem a little too convenient, but since we do not know, all we can claim is exactly that. His 5-9th points could be debated to some degree, but not if he doesn't even know why he is making those points. His most intelligent argument IMO, came at the very begenning of his second post. This was something you could tell that he came to of his own thinking as he could explain his reasoning for it. That is why I debated the fact, because it was worthy of a debate. The rest is just him trying to justify debating points that he does not know. I do not like using articles as my POV, but I will give this link, it is the complete UN's resolutions placed on Iraq. It is the UN's website, and nothing is presented except for what is included in the resolutions. No interpretations are given, just the exact wording of the resolutions. http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm As for your opinion, I enjoyed it very much. But I guess I should have explained that I meant the UN's deffinition of a preemptive strike to ensure homeland security. Yes, the term preemptive strike in it's normal meaning would constitute that which you are saying. Politically, it means that they have declared war on a country because they believe that in the future the security of the United States is in grave danger. If the United States can prove that there was a significant danger to their homeland, then the war is legal by the UN. If they find no WOMD, then the UN can declare that it was an illegal invasion. If that happens the US will have no say in what happens to post war Iraq or their oil fields. I also would like to add that will I was in Grenada they had pro american graffitti on the sides of buildings and everyone we talked to, especially the people who were around 40 and up, had a great deal of respect for the americans. If you wish, look up the history of Grenada, 25 years ago their government was assassinated by a guerilla group and they took control of the country and held a school hostage. The americans came in alone, took out the guerilla group and helped Grenada in electing a new government. The americans did not stay and occupy it, nor did they rape their natural resources. Although this does not happen often, sometimes the americans do do the right thing. They called the americans the heroes of the carribean. Not all US intervention is bad. Somehow this Thread was started twice, and as such, I can forget that I stated something over there instead of here. I have not giving my reasons for being pro-Iraqi-war because I wanted to debate why it is so popular to be anti-war. I guess since I use the term anti-war to refer to a certain group of the anti-war people. I stated it only briefly so I will clarify: I want to know how come so many people who are anti-war AND have no real idea why the war is taking place are attacking people who have reasons for being pro-war or if they dislike something that is stated by an anti-war, they only recieve isults, and no one will give ANY reasons as to why they are against it. There are people who have legitimate reasons for being anti-war, and that is great, but do not tell me I am wrong and insult me when they can't even give me one reason why they are against the war. The only time anyone disputed anything was if they cut-and-pasted an anti-war article by anti-war news groups. That is great that you looked it up, but why can you not tell me your opinion all on your own? If you can claim to know that I am wrong, then tell me why, don't tell me that I am a faggot. I guess I will bring over my other posts, but they may not make sense since they were directed at other posts. I know I wrote alot so please excuse me for not putting some points into detail, as confusion arises I will clarify. Also I want to stress that this is not limited to Live Victoria and as a posted else where what really set me off on the theory that it has become popular to be anti-war was an incident involving my friends. I will bring the posts over. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 9:01pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | These are all brought over from the other thread... They were posts I made in response to the same original post and the posts made by other people. - 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. - 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. - - 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 1:41pm 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. - 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 know I probably wouldn't). 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. I left one post there because it was just a theory and not really relevent. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 10:02pm | ||
| A*Funk | Fair enuf, cobra, you make a good point with Grenada - though I continue to point out that America's record in the Caribbean is mixed. In response to your rephrasing of your original point, "I want to know how come so many people who are anti-war AND have no real idea why the war is taking place..." I suppose I might simply disagree with your assumptions that those who are anti-war don't really know what's going on. The pro-war argument is fairly easy to grasp, thanks to the hard work of Messrs. Bush and Blair: Saddam's regime must be removed due to two substantive arguments. 1) Saddam's previous possession and use of chemical and biological weapons (which, according to at least one American Politics professor of mine, were in part provided to him by Regan in an effort to defeat Iran in the 80s) represents a clear threat to the nations of the world, more so in the age of terror because terrorists could be used to deliver these weapons. If you don't buy this argument, or it is too hawkish for you, they provide argument 2) Saddam's regime is oppressive and fascist, and the killing of innocent Iraqis must be stopped and democracy installed via regime change, or military intervention by a coalition of the willing. The counter arguments to these powerful positions are much more nuanced and forward-looking. While they recognize the difficulties faced today, they also remind us of the cumulative effects of the past and the possibilities this war will create in the future. The arguments themselves are hard to understand unless you're an academic - heck, I'm a student of this stuff and I don't fully understand it yet- but my feeling is that people sense the arguments out there. In the news and in private discussion, they recognize the little bits and pieces that don't add up - Like why is Donny Rumsfeld so linked with Haliburton? Why is Saddam the didctator of Iraq? etc. They sense a different narrative trying to play out - one that includes these inconvenient facts that are left out because they don't fit the Bush/Blair narrative. But without a centralized, hypermediated public figure to spell out exactly what argument to impress your friends with at the local coffee shop, it is difficult for anyone to really grasp at all the loose ends and contemplate a fuller picture. I think that's why you keep getting these newspaper clippings and simplified arguments about oil - people hold up these shreds of anit-war information, hoping that they will eventually be summed up in the media in an easy, catch-all antiwar argument. Unfortunately, that argument is unlikely to be either easy or catch-all, and will inevitably devalue certain facts about the situation; it is nonetheless important for us all to keep looking for the hidden bits of truth, and paste them together for ourselves. to quote Borsteels, Mirella and Schilling (man I really need to get back to writing my take home final - i'm starting to use quotes on Livevic) "social totality can be grasped only as the dialectical effect of the incompleteness of representation." You can never have access to the full truth, so as a result you can only see the "big picture" by pulling out and discussing these little bits of information. A simple slogan, like Kill Saddam cause he Kills babies, or No Blood for oil, will never represent the reality of life. So use your melon and piece it together. That being said, its pretty stupid to call people faggots, and if this has happened to Cobra, thats a shame - but lets not forget its Livevic, and that shit just happens here. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 10:39pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | I wish you luck on your final. I guess I am doing a pretty shitty job of explaining myself. To rephrase my original point, again: I would like to know why people who know nothing or very little about the war, that are against the war, try to start a debate about the war, bash americans without reason, and when someone has a different opinion about the war, they get to insult and harrass that person, and not by themselves, there would be up to 20 people bashing and give NO justification for their reasoning? Why someone will be quoted, praised, and supported for posting a link/article to an anti-war website, while not knowing enough about what is said in the article to even tell if it is true? Why have I seen a dozen threads, and talked to alot of people, and the opinions today have been better today than all the rest them combined? I think most people really would be against this war if they took twenty minutes out of their day to learn something about it. But instead alot of people hate this war because the people they are around say so. I want to know how can some one stand up for something and defend their point of view with relentless attacks and not one point about the war? Sometimes someone will respond with "Bush is just there for the oil", but when asked how do you know that they post an article. I saw one article from the gaurdian that was very well written, and one of the more intelligent speculations, but the poster took out the author's name, and claimed it as his own. For some reason, everyone praised this guy as a genius. I have seen some people respond today with alot of unsubstantiated views, but at least they responded without swearing. It is unusual that today, when I was even offensive towards the people that had made those attacks on me and the others, that no one responded like they all had on previous posts. I bet if someone had responded to this thread with "fuck off idiot" that there would be tons of similar responses to follow. I bet that if a group of people started having threads about how good the war was, and posted pro-war propaganda, the majority would follow. My conclusions being, alot of people want to be led, and told what to think. I wish I could add more to this reasoning but it is the only conclusion I can reach. As A*Funk pointed out earlier, it is live victoria. - Sun, 6 Apr 2003 11:29pm | ||
| Troutbreath | Toooooo much talking!!!!! You people sound like the idiots that got the US into a war in the first place, all talk and no action. If they really wanted Saddam gone he would have been out of there in '91. The only people that argue for war are people who have never experienced one. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 1:51am | ||
| SweetGrass | Mr. Cobra... If it takes this many words to explain your point perhaps your point isn't as clear to you as you think. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 1:58am | ||
| been there | Too true,Troutbreath - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 2:16am | ||
| Cobra Commander | I was trying to be nice because I have been aggressive enough, but oh well. I explained it quite clearly multiple times. I repeated myself instead of making you figure it out. I thought since I already now that most people here can not even know basic facts about Saddam and Bush that actually make them EVIL. Not one person has mentioned that Iraq was condemned in 1988 for using chemical weapons on the Kurdish people in his own country. It took place for a year before he was stopped, the corpses were widely televised and over 100 000 Kurds were victims to Saddam's genocide. What about Bush Sr.'s massacre of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and travelling civilians in a bomb raid that destroyed over 2000 vehicles and 60 miles of each highway. This came a full day after the seize fire, and the Iraqi soldiers had been ordered home due to the end of the war. The UN made an Inquiry into these war crimes but decided they could not tell if the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi bodies and not one american casualty represents a war crime. Why every one here says that Bush is after the oil, but very few of you know why. The US and UK recomended to the UN to lift all capacity sanctions on oil production and their very own pricing system for Iraqi oil which made it the cheapest oil in the world. The UN reinstated the oil for food program in Iraq, which lets the UN hold on to all profits from oil sales in an account to feed Iraqi's. What company do you think got the job of drilling, distributing, and selling the Iraqi's oil? If you guessed Dick Cheney's own little oil company, you would have been correct. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 2:34am | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | Yup there is a lot of talking on this thread. If you don't want to be invloved it is pretty easy to NOT press the post button. I am not going to even be bothered explaining how americans can use the oil that they are about to steal from the Iraqi's for alot more than profits. There should be enough starting information on this thread for you to be able to look it up and figure it out for yourselves. The UN has no power anymore, they have not had any real power for a long time. If the UN had any power at all, then why would all of these atrocities take place today. Why won't they stop genocide that is still happening on a mass scale in Bosnia and Somolia. Why does CNN have so much coverage of this war when every day there is large scale fighting taking place in these countries. This is not new, it has been going on for over a decade in both countries. Canada is participating in the war in Bosnia, did you know that? Did you know that a vast majority of our troops are getting sent in to join the battle in Bosnia? They leave in a few days, but that probably won't even make our canadian news. How many times does the government screw over it's people every year? How many fery fiasco's and fire arm registry flops are we going to have? Canada is guilty of blinding us from what goes on in our own country. Canadian government does not represent us Canadians, it does not take actions that reflect what we want to happen in our country. Democracy is supposed to mean that the majority rules, but how many people complain about the exact same bullshit that our government causes. Every person here that is against the war should try to learn what these governments are getting away with. So many people hate Bush and are agaist this war, but have not bothered to look into all of it. The oil in Iraq will give the americans control over oil prices worldwide. In order to keep prices at a large profit margin, which is very important to many countries that rely on oil as their source of income, or one of the main sources of income, will have to keep Bush from getting angry with them, or he could kill their finances. When I say Bush, I mean the people that control him. Look at him speak and listen to what he has to say, he is not that smart, and his reign in office has been suspicious ever since the elections. Does everyone remember that, when Gore won but Bush managed to have a large amount of Gore's votes deemed uncountable? They kept coming up with excuses as to why the votes for Gore were not good. They even got a judge to say that although Gore had more votes, Bush gets it. So many of you are realizing just how bad the american government is. It raises questions about our own governing bodies. Do you want to know why I am in favor of this war and why I don't like people who are mad at the states without looking into it more? Because of this war, you, and the general public, are starting to get pissed off and our asking the right questions. Look how many people post anti-war setiments on this site alone. Look at how many people you know that are also against this war, or that are starting to be. This is just the beginning of the Iraq takeover, think how much more questions will arise and atrocities realized after the US and their British allies have won. I am for this war because it gives everyone in the world the desire to question what the hell is going on in this world. I am for this war because the atrocities have to stop! If everyone knows for themselves legitimate reasons to stand up against the americans and every other bullshit government that keeps on doing this, something will have to happen. They can not silence all of us. They are the ones who are testing their limits, we must show them that they passed their limits long ago. Do not forget what they have done in the past, what they are doing now, and what they will do. Where is the body that is supposed to stop evil countries from invading other countries unjustly, ruling markets, and where are the people who are supposed to make sure this does not happen to us? The UN is nothing, if the even had one ounce of power this would have stopped. If they had any power Bush Sr. would be cell mates with Saddam for war crimes. Does this take too many words to describe? I don't see enough words coming from most people. We can't just sit here and be controlled so that the US can do this again. They have invaded two countries in as many years, who will be the new american prize in 2004? You can't just complain about the americans bullying the world. The entire planet knows that Bush is taking over Iraq for american gain. There is huge protests and marches everywhere because of him. They have huge demonstrations in countries where it is illegal to do so. Everyone in the world is starting to figure it out. Nobody would be on here looking into what the US has done had it not been for this war. We would be joking about americans referring to their president as Dubbya, and calling them hosers. REMEMBER that everyone has a bias, and to look into more than one source for reference: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html http://www.thememoryhole.org/media/al-jazeera/index.html http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html http://www.un.int/usa/ http://www.jewish-history.com/editorial_03302001.html http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/prophecy/23/Flash/Flash11.htm http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm http://www.atour.com/news/assyria/20000531c.html http://www.thenation.com/ http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/shapiro/2003-03-27-hyped_x.htm Don't just be led like a sheep to hate Bush for oil. It is alot more than that. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 2:47am | ||
| On the other hand... | Mr Cobra: Where did you get this mistaken belief that human life has an intrinsic value? Not from any history I'm aware of... - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:23am | ||
| Troutbreath | CC you know there are many of us out there who have heard all this. I was around during Vietnam. This is not the first time I've had these kinds of conversations. If you want to get some interesting insight into the way American foriegn policy fails read Barbara Tuchmans book, "Stilwell". If you want I'll send you a copy of the book I wrote "Strangekarma for the French Petty Nobility". I used to take important American nincompoops fishing. I'm concerned about the US but not for the same reasons you are. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:28am | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | Concerned for the US? It's Citizens, yes, but not their administration. You have had all these conversations before, since the vietnam war, why the hell do they still get away with it? Why do people think it is better to ignore the actions taking by the US government? I think that our best hope lays in the fact that my generation wants a lot more than conversations. I know that I am not just going to sit on my ass, sign petitions, and go on demonstrations. I bet there are alot of people out there who agree with me that soemthing has to be done. No more pussy ass "what can I do?" attitudes. The hippies taught us something very important, bitching gets you no where. There is no way that the US or any other government will be able to continue with their games they play with our lives, with our world. There is over 6 billion of us and we have different cultures, languages, skin colour, and musical styles, but there is at leaset one thing most of the world has in common, we want this to end. This war will be over in the near future, are you, troutbreath going to sit at your computer bitching at people on live victoria and watching the news to see what else you must ignore? Yeah, that is what your generation did, and I regret that you think that we will follow in your footsteps. I do not need a new view, if you can prove me wrong, I will gladly listen. But although ignorance is bliss, I have learned too much to just shut-up and read a book. All the Noam Chomsky in the world isn't going to change what Bush and his daddy have done. I think you should see a different point of view by watching the movie "A Bug's Life". It may be for kids, but the message is the same. If my three year old can figure it out, I am sure you have the intellect to. Please forgive me if you think I am attacking you personally, because I am not, I do not know you, but it's time to stop bending over. Too many people are getting on the right track, they know that something is wrong about this, but too many people know so little. We can't save those who have died, but how many more will be enough? Please will someone tell me this? How many people have to be massacred, how many needless wars, who do they have to kill before you will do something? And as to Mr. ontheotherhand: If you think life has no inherent or built-in value, then could you please go to Iraq and trade your life for one of the people who will die who actually has value? I do not believe you understand your own statement, something every war should teach us is that we have intrinsic value. Hitler baelieved that Jews had no intrinsic lives, that was one of his sociopath justifications. What is your justification? - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 2:24pm | ||
| Troutbreath | Like what? Kill some more people in a Civil War cause you don't like the government? Welcome to Democracy. It may not be the best system possible but it sure beats the alternatives. You need to get used to the idea that the majority of people in the US WANTED the invasion of Iraq just like they wanted the troops in Vietnam. They didn't leave until the majority of people in the US wanted them gone. The Hippies had a small role in swaying that public opinion. Messy maybe but it's called D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y. People are smarter and more idiotic than you give them credit . - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 2:46pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | I guess I was right. I am sorry if you think that this is actually a democracy. I would rather fight and die to stop atrocites than sit on my ass and what for my turn. I bet if you lived in Iraq you wouldn't be sitting there voting to go to war with the US. But hey I guess americans and Canadians are better than everyone else and so we believe it is ok to massacre a pile of arabic people. Lets vote for genocide, because that makes it ok. Look at how many people know nothing about what the US and other governments have done. In the last ten years, no one knows. How can you say they agree with this war? They agreed with CNN. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 2:54pm | ||
| Troutbreath | " But hey I guess americans and Canadians are better than everyone else and so we believe it is ok to massacre a pile of arabic people." CC in case you missed it, Canada does not support the US led war in Iraq. Our fumbling democracy at work again. However like all zealots you tend to ignore the stuff that doesn't agree with your point of view. So yeah go out and blow something up if that's the way you feel. I just hope no one gets hurt. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 3:06pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | Umm, staying out of the war, that is amusing. Our country is sitting here, not stepping up to bat and saying "NO". Which is the popular opinion in Canada. And we are not sending in trrops to fight, but my best friend leaves in less than a week to go search for submarines and to participate in protecting american vessels. Not doing anything might be excusable, since we are too afraid to even stand up against the states in matters such as our fish and our lumber. Bowing down from the states is what canada does best. But we are participating in this war, we just call it peacekeeping, or as my buddy said when he got his orders, 'securing our interests'. We will go, because after this war we will have cheaper gas, and a better economy due to the increase in trade with the US. It is worth too much money for us to say no. Instead we say 'not without UN support'. So if the UN had said that this was OK, then Canadian troops would be frontline, taking Iraqi bullets from Iraqi soldiers trying to STOP an invasion in their country. If I was an Iraqi, I would be pegging off each american invader until they got me with bomb they shot at me from miles and miles away. Ok, so tell me what would you do if the americans claim we have WOMD?? Would you throw your hands up in the air and say, please come rule us, rape our resources, or would you die fighting? You sound like a surrender to me. Yup, I see it now, hiding in your litle hotbox, waiting for the soldiers to come into your home and take over your country. Well, maybe you might write the UN a letter? We all know how well they police their member countries. Blow something up. Yeah, I guess you are missing the whole point. We don't need Bush, Bush needs us. If no one does what he says then he has NO power. It invovles attacking no one. There are many routes to take before it will come to violence. I bet not even 10% of the americans know that the US was under investigation because of the massacre of Iraqi troops and civilians a full day and a half after they surrendered. If I was an Iraqi, I would hate the US too. I would hate Saddam, but I would probably rather be ruled by mass murdering Iraqi than a mass murdering American. And people have been getting hurt every day becuase of the actions of that government. Can you not see? - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 3:09pm | ||
| Troutbreath | So what are you going to do about it? Unless I'm mistaken you're just sitting at a computer bitching at people on LiveVic. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 3:32pm | ||
| Anonymous | P.S. try to tell me in 25 words or less, all this reading is making my head hurt. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 3:39pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | If everyone knew the truth about what the american government has done and is doing, they would not be in power. The UN has to be demolished and replaced with people who will not be bought. What will I do? This is round one. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 3:47pm | ||
| Troutbreath | The UN has been bought by whom exactly? Certainly not the US they haven't paid their dues in years. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 3:54pm | ||
| Anonymous | P.S. one more thing, not everyone is going to agree with you version of the truth. That damn democractic process again. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 4:00pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | Well lets see, if Bush Sr. was accused of war crimes, there is proof to no end of what he did. The pilots who flew the bombers call it in an outrage. The UN did nothing. Milosevic is tried for war crimes, and he has done nothing compared to what Bush and his daddy have done. Iraq was charged and condemned for using Chemical warfare on Iranians 3 times, and they were charged and condemned for using chemical weapons on his own people. He was found guilty and all they did was say that it is bad. So many countries are against this war on Iraq, but the UN either couldn't or wouldn't do anything to stop them. If they can't do anything, then lets replace them with a body that can. If they won't do anything, then lets replace them with a body that will not be persuaded to turn a cheek. Persuasion is usually bought, with money or otherwise. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 4:00pm | ||
| SweetGrass | It seems you have a lot of opinions, and I'm all for information and education, but all you've offered up are the problems . What do you think can be done now to make a difference. I have a good friend who is overseas right now working with women and children affected by war and violence. She's actually trying to make their lives different. You are sitting telling us all how we don't get it! But again I ask what do you see the solution being? Education is not enough and the U.S. don't learn from their history.Ideas??? - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 4:05pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | That is the reason I started this thread! I want people to go out and just fucking learn! I DO NOT want you to take my word for it. I want you to look for yourself. If everyone researched what they were told, or more importantly, not told by the media, this thread would not exist, there would be no problems. Two words: Nagasaki, Hiroshima The entire world saw this, studies this in school. The Japanese attack a MILITARY installation, the americans retaliate with the destruction of two cities. They nuked little kids, families, schools, churches, homes. Why didn't anything happen then? Just look it up for yourself. If you find your own answers then you would at least not be a sheep. This is exactly what I was challenging anyone who was anti-war to do! There are very good reasons to be against this war, but what good is protesting a war when you don't even know why? having a friend tell you theories about the war is good. Researching them before you buy into them is great. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 4:07pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | Sweetgrass, I think the states have learned from the past. They have learned how to get away with it time and time again. I disagree with you fully on your assumption that education does not work. Not once have the people of N.America, let alone the world, been educated by the government on what atrocites occur. The media has been controlled since it began. We finally have a tool at our hands that we can use to look into vast areas of information. The draw back is that you have to read both sides of the arguement. If Saddam says 100,000 Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed by US bombers on the highways out of Kuwait, and the Bush administration says the same thing, then you have a fact. Saddam says they were retreating after a surrender, Bush said they were going to come back. Eihter way, it was wrong for Bush to slaughter civilians and soldiers as they left. The UN said it was wrong but did nothing. I wonder how many americans know this? There are hundreds of websites dedicated to pictures, interviews, witness testimonies and tributes to this massacre. I like the interview with mr. Colin Powell (you are already educated so you know he was one of the leaders of the gulf war) where he says before the massacre that "no Iraqi soldier will escape". He didn't tell a lie. I think one of the links I posted has some of that interview. Sweetgrass, we do not know if education will work or not until alot more than 1% of the population is educated about it all. Clearly, everyone here, myself included has alot more to learn about the problems going on worldwide. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 4:25pm | ||
| Troutbreath | One thing I have learned is that the world can be a mean place. Before Hiroshima, the Japanese went into China. They did some things there that weren't very pleasant(Stilwell by Barabara Tuchman as a ref.). It's not like the Americans dropped the bomb on them for no reason, you just don't agree with the reasons. You would have preferred the US invaded Japan? - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 4:52pm | ||
| Anonymous | You are right. Of course all those innocent Japanese civilians deserved to be wiped out of existence. What was I thinking? I am sorry sir, but I do not see how deliberate civilian casualities in any way is justified. Yes it made the Japenese fall to their knees, but what if the Japanese had dropped a bigger bomb on Seattle or LA? Osama Bin Laden had his reasons as well. Osame Bin Laden killed a hell of a lot less civilians then that bomb produced. I don't agree with Osama'a reasons either, do you? For the attacks on Iraq and Panama, George Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, Richard Cheney, William Webster, James Baker, and everyones favorite General Colin Powell, were found guilty of 19 war crimes. Not one of them recieved so much as a fine. All of these men need to be locked up forever. http://www.deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm Here is a full listing of all the charges, the reasons behind the charges, the convictions and suggested sentencing. If anyone is interested in learning more about the nice americans. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 6:20pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | Sorry, that last post was me. Oh and yes the americans did send ground troops into Japan. That is a personal one for my family as my great grandfather served there and was injured. It later led my relatives to visit the area as when my g.grandfather was injured, he was cared for by a Japanese civilian over the course of many months and my family wished to thank her. My great uncle even ended up moving there. I doubt very many countries can claim innocence. You do not think this has to change? It is more than who is running countries. The entire world needs a serious overhaul. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 6:32pm | ||
| SweetGrass | It's curious to me that you keep attacking us when alot of what you are saying, we all are in agreement with. 1:Dialogue is the most important way for people to understand what is happening around us, if you keep attacking us for trying to extend the dialogue you have begun here, you are defeating your own purpose. 2:Positive re-inforcement is the method I employ when encouraging young minds to seek knowledge beyond what they know. I think what you are illuminating is very important but people don't like to be told they are stupid because they don't know all the facts and it certainly won't encourage them to tap into the web sites you are offering. 3:My grandfather was an R.A.F pilot and my other grandparents escaped Hungary in the underground to come to Canada. We all have history that has shaped our opinions so lets talk openly without criticism to help all understand what is wrong with the U.S. p.s. Yes I am aware of Colin Powell's past roles in Iraq. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 6:57pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | I did not think I was being insulting to you, nor did I insult you. I do not agree with some of your post. That does not make you wrong, but if you ask me how I want to make change and tell me that I am wrong in my idea's, I am going to correct what is in my view an incorrect statement. I enjoy debates. It is from debating my points with others, and then recieving their reasons for/against my views and their own that I have learned to form new opinions, or gain further insight on old opinions. If someone tells me I am wrong, why I am wrong, and they can support it, or if asked can give references to it, then I must look into it. It does get hard to debate a view without offending someone when they follow it not because of fact, but because they have faith that they are correct. These are also the views that you should not try to impose on people. Some people have the opinion that the bible is really the word of god. I do not have that opinion and I could argue it to death with extensive reasons why. It is virtually impossible to argue for the validity of the bible as it is completely based on faith. So if you tell me an opinion that you have on faith, and I discount it, please do not take offense. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 7:20pm | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | I'm just gonna cut/paste what I posted in one of the other dumbass war threads as my reason. When the US can keep their noses out of other countries business, maybe my stance will change, until then reap what you sow yankie global bullies. And I made sure to include the typical "peacnick's" view concerning the oil fields just to piss you off. If you think it has nothing to do with the fact of why they're there you need to do some reasearch yourself obviously. The US backed Iraq during their police action on Iran. Supplied the Iraqi's with the technology that ended up killing tens of thousands of Kurds (helicopters that were intended for agricultural use, were converted to gunships which launched numerous chemical weapons attacks against the Kurds). The US continued to back the Iraq government up until the Iraqi's decided to invade Kuwait. At this point the US was concerned with their interests in the kuwait oil fields, decided to assist Kuwait in the 1st Gulf Police action. The US caused this, the US can now reap what they've sown. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 7:23pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | Close Shaggy, but Kuwait was a front to invade Iraq. The US was charged and convicted of setting up Iraq to invade Kuwait. It was one of the 19 war crimes they were convicted of. And I know it is long, but you really should read all the posts before you make assumptions. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 7:39pm | ||
| A*Funk | *ugh* Head hurts... all nighters suck. ok, so interesting developments since last night include (a) Cobra isn't the brazen hawk I thought he was (b) We seem to all be debating our agreement. since such common ground has been found, and because some facts and websites have been dropped, may I suggest that we take a new direction on this thread? It seems that alot of people have some concrete information on "open secrets" out there; why don't we start busting out the information we all have here, and share our knowledge with the rest of this little internet community? I for one have far less solid info than I'd like - I was very interested to see Cobra's war crimes page (although i'd like to know who sponsored the tribunal) - and I think we'd all appreciate some good fresh info. Share and share alike, and build a new narrative for ourselves! I'll start 'er off with some perennial faves: http://www.opensecrets.org http://www.creativeresistance.ca http://www.alternet.org And if you email me, I'll hook you up with the locally published activist news listserv. Cheers! - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 9:26pm | ||
| Mr. Hell User Info... | I don't follow wars or politics. But it seems more obvious than ever to me with this war happening that Bush's Presidential win was fixed. Carry on and call me Captain Obvious, just had to say that cuz it popped into my head. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 9:55pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | Thanks for the links A*Funk. And yes Mr. Hell, I believe that to be the case. Too many coincidences all lining up before this war, and before Bush Jr. - Mon, 7 Apr 2003 10:10pm | ||
| Shaggy User Info... | In my personal opinion Bush is just cleaning up all of Reagan and Bush Sr's mistakes. God for bid the republican party would ever make mistakes and actually admit it. It's all a sham. This is no different than Korea/Vietnam, just a different time and a different 3rd world country. - Tue, 8 Apr 2003 3:39am | ||
| Anonymous | Cobra, your discussion violates several laws of logic. You seem to bend the truth to your own purpose and you make assertions that have no validity. What court has convicted Bush of War crimes your own? You duck questions that Troutbreath puys to you. What would you do to change things. Why are you bitching infront of your computer instead of doing something more constructive. You are also one of the most condescending fuckwits I've ever read on LiveVic. I think Tourbreath has you and you refuse to admit it. You are incapable of saying you are wrong about something. So fuck off and die. - Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:43am | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | I do not know if I should even respond to this anon, but I will. I do not see questions that I have not answered. Troutbreath is always very agressive in his debating, and has asked questions like "would it have been better if the US invaded Japan?". How can I answer that when the US DID invade Japan? I have dipute much of what troutbreath has said and I do not feel it neccesary to tell him he is wrong constantly and answer questions that I already have answered previously. I have had to repeat myself numerous occasions already on many points, and if you wish to debate something with me, take the time to read what I already have written. I do not believe that I should have to take the effort to debate my points with someone who will not even take the time to read my oinions and claims. As for what court convicted the US? READ! I even gave you a couple of links regarding this so that I would not have responses like yours. Please, if you feel that the US is innocent, and you actually figure out legitimate reasons why you feel this way, come and debate the with me, or anyone else who has similar views. I have no problem with you disputing my conclusions, but at least give me a real reason why. Since I started this thread, I have been able to learn new ways to share my ideas with people outside of Live Victoria. I even have a friend who less than a week ago had no idea what a resolution was, now giving ideas on how to spread knowledge of what the US and other criminal governments have done and are doing. This website has gone from people using insults to dispute their claims, to now thinking about why and giving reasons. Even if I have been harsh, hypocritical, offensive, unclear, and long-winded, people have been thinking about this war, even if it is only to dispute me. What am I going to do about it? Well I already achieved my first goal. I wanted to see if there is anyway to get people to think for themselves, and there is. I believe that education will not be the only way to make change, but it is completely neccesary in order to take the next step. I have ideas about what everyone could do to create change, but why should that be my responsibility alone? I can sit here and give you a dozen ways that I think may work, or everyone can work together on creating a plan that will be looked at from many angles and perspectives. Before this war started I knew pretty much nothing about the ablsolute horrors that take place everyday in this world. You obviously do not know as I did not, and my plan is to make you think. It is working. Shaggy, they deffinately are, but I wonder how many actions taking were mistakes, and how many were paving the way for future actions? Bush Sr. could claim that it was a mistake to massacre the remaining Iraqi forces in 1991. But know the Coalition Forces are fighting a war with the Iraq army still barely at half of what it was, and very few experienced veterans to train the current army. There are a few instances like this throughout american government history. Was panama a mistake, or a clever strategic plan? I agree with you completely that they will try not to admit mistakes, and that it is Vietnam/Korea all over agian. Just different motives, and a different puppet. - Tue, 8 Apr 2003 4:20pm | ||
| Troutbreath | "How can I answer that when the US DID invade Japan? I have dipute much of what troutbreath has said and I do not feel it neccesary to tell him he is wrong" CC you're a supercilious little puke. The US did not INVADE Japan they entered Japan after the Japanese government unconditionally surrendered to them. The reason they dropped the A-bomb was to avoid a long and bloody invasion that would have killed millions more than the bomb did. If you want to debate with me at least stick to the facts. I don't like war any more than you do but I really detest condescending little punks that have just had their eyes opened for the first time and insist on telling everyone about their new found wisdom. You should try to be a little more humble. - Tue, 8 Apr 2003 5:19pm | ||
| Cobra Commander User Info... | They didn't invade Japan, they just entered it? Ok Troutbreath, your playing with words is similar to the propaganda used by the American government. The facts: American soldiers 'entered' a country, ground troops engaged in battle with Japanese soldiers trying to defend their homes from the americans 'entering' Japan. Japan did surrender, and the american 'enterers' destroyed tokyo, all the military installations, and almost every source of civilian income. After the americans were done 'entering' Japan and the war was long over my uncle went there with very little money and was able to live like a king as there were no hotels, factories, or decent living accomidations. I guess now American forces have just 'entered' Iraq as well? Most of the Iraqi soldiers were killed by the US AFTER Saddam surrendered. Millions of Japanese people did die, and millions more died from the complete destruction of their economy, food and water, homes, and hmedical facilities. This is one event that has bothered me for a long time as I have Japanese relatives and this has been discuseed alot. I almost feel sick by the fact that just like a sociopath you can justify the use of nuclear force. I really have no idea how to respond to you. I do not think I will be able to ever enjoy your bands music again. How can you think that it is ok to nuke children? What sane justification is there? Please tell me that you are extremely racist towards the Japanese, and that is why you think it is ok. At least then I would know that you are just ignorant. After this I, Cobra Commander, am retiring from this, and any other discussions on live victoria. I concede that although I believe that there is too much horror in this world and it can be changed, as long as people who think actions like that are acceptable under any circumstances, humans do not deserve peace. We do not deserve to live in a world where truth and justice matter. We deserve to be led like sheep. If there was one lesson we should have learned from WW2, it should have been that nuclear force is NEVER an option. I will not post any more here. You sir troutbreath, have taking away my most sacred belief, that the people in Canada and the rest of the world could learn about atrocities and want to stop them. No, you would rather justify their actions. How is it ok? How? You are a sick, sick man. Jesus Christ, YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT IT WAS OK TO NUKE PEOPLE?!?! - Tue, 8 Apr 2003 5:30pm | ||
| Troutbreath | The conventional bombing of Tokyo shortly before Hiroshima killed an estimated 130,000 people in the initial bombing and the resulting firestorm. I'm not interested in saying that the people who died of suffocation huddled in their basements died any less horrifically than those that were vapourized by the atomic explosion. However, the fact remains the Japanese Govt. was intent on continiung the war after Tokyo. The destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima by this mysterious new weapon convinced the Emperor to put a stop to it. The Japanese were running concentration camps in China and conducting scientific experiments using Chinese people as guinea pigs, how is that for rascism? The Japanese often overlook that part of their wartime involvement. How long would you have liked that to have gone on? Tone down the rhetoric a little and maybe we can talk about this stuff rationally. Oh God, I'm debating the Second World War on LiveVic somebody please put me out of my misery. Where's ROSS BAY when I need him? - Tue, 8 Apr 2003 7:18pm | ||
| Anonymous | Troutbreath, you might want to check your facts, as there was a full invasion of Japan. It is also well documented that the only reason Japan had not surrendered was because the Emperor would not accept the terms of unconditional surrender. And even if they were not going to surrender dropping a couple of a-bombs on civilian targets is hardly acceptable. - Tue, 8 Apr 2003 8:29pm | ||
| Anonymous | It wasn't the Emperor who wouldn't surrender but the Military Government. The Emperor stepped outside protocal and asked them to stop the war. Who's facts are in Question? - Tue, 8 Apr 2003 8:59pm | ||
| Tokugawa | uhhhhhhhhh.... Japan didn't surrender after the bombs were dropped... they surrendered after Russia invaded Manchuria. They wanted to prevent what happened in Korea and Germany and Vietnam where those countries were split in 2 by the US and Russia.... - Tue, 8 Apr 2003 9:39pm | ||
| Troutbreath | "After this I, Cobra Commander, am retiring from this, and any other discussions on live victoria." I guess my work is done here. - Tue, 8 Apr 2003 9:42pm | ||
| SweetGrass | cc :I guess you missed my point about positive re-inforcement hey? Mr. Cobra...Do you need a hug??? - Wed, 9 Apr 2003 2:36am | ||
|
|||
Not logged in
Log In / Register (optional)
Featured Events
Featured Historical Events
Featured Article
Newest Profiles
West Coast REACH Association
Utilizing music & the other performing arts for social good
722 Cormorant St. Victoria BC
Open / Operational
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
