Quote:As I've said elsewhere, I think the next step is, in addition to demonstrating against the war, to incorporate a very strong protest against the Bush administration ...
Funny, I've thought all along that the protests were against the Bush administration. In fact, the only place they seem even to pretend otherwise is here in the states (and that not very effectively).
t.p.
I certainly do object to what the Australian prime minister has done ...
But back to the US .... Most people think that war with Iraq will achieve peace & stability on the planet? I find that really difficult to believe.
All the protests in the world will not stop what is soon to occur. The only thing left to do is to wait, hope and pray for a swift and victorious outcome with few casualties on either side. For the protesters they will have their say in 04. In the mean time they might just as well be howling at the moon.
au1929- Agree to a certain extent. If you look at it logically, there is a very simple way to stop the war. The ball is in Saddam's court. All he needs to do is leave Iraq with his family and Generals, and there will be no war.
If he won't, then I agree with you absolutely. IMO, if Saddam does not leave, the war plans are a fait accompli. Any anti-war arguments at this point to me, is nothing more than intellectual masturbation.
When the war begins, of course, in a free country, it is always appropriate to demonstrate your feelings towards the war. Even if one does not agree with the war, IMO, now is the time to support our troops. As I have said on another thread, I don't want to see what happened to our military after they returned from Vietnam.
Phoenix:
I respectfully disagree. I believe we need to make sure the people of this country know about the massive civilian casualities that this war will inflict, how it may lead to more terror (IMHO the idea).
When this is over we need to make sure that the UN makes the US et al PAY through sanctions and reconstruction costs, and as Tartanian said, we need to stay together and work at our own "Regime Change" here in the US.
there is no excuse for war..
if u are a woman with a 2 years old child what would u do ?
think abt the aged people who live in Iraq.
all around the world lost of people protest the war ..but the governments dont care abt them..
they want more and more and more..
maybe i think childish maybe there is really something i missed..
but i still dont get " why war ? "
whats gonna happen to all those people ?
when we are laughing they are gonna cry ? they ll try to survive..
its just a wildness..
NeoGuin
Quote: I believe we need to make sure the people of this country know about the massive civilian causalities that this war will inflict, how it may lead to more terror
And you think that the only way people will be aware of what is happening if the protesters tell them?
I have seen on TV some of the protests and watched as the speakers one after the other introduce their own agenda into the discussion. In most cases their agenda was one of the radical left and if anything it has been a turnoff for me and I am sure many others.
As to a regime change this being the US the only way through a regime change is the vote. Left wing radicals will not enhance the chances of a democratic victory at the polls. If anything they are a detriment.
The eternal argument: the protesters are radical left.
Is Scott Ritter radical left?
IF all those people protesting would be radical left=> half the world would be communist by now.
frolic
No not all the people are radical left. However, many of the organizers and speakers are. They can't seem to stay on the theme of the protest.
au1929 wrote:frolic
No not all the people are radical left. However, many of the organizers and speakers are. They can't seem to stay on the theme of the protest.
I agree, but not entirely. Some things have to be seen in connection with this. Talking about peace and stability in the Middle East can't be done without mentioning Palestine. Talking about the war cant be done without mentioning Cheney and his Coporate interests.
People talking in favor of a war also have their own agenda. Some want payback for 9/11, some want a regime change because they belief strongly in democracy, some want a war because most Iraqi are muslim, some want a war because of business interests, some...
AU:
I'm aware that the only way is through the vote.
And I think that should this anti-war movement be willing to work past the end of the war to show how the costs of this war are being paid by us, that we can build a backlash.
trespassers will wrote: Funny, I've thought all along that the protests were against the Bush administration. In fact, the only place they seem even to pretend otherwise is here in the states (and that not very effectively).
You're quite right, Tres -- they are (as opposed to being against the US in general). But as for the protests within our borders, they contain a variety of political colors and my point was that those of us who are, more or less, Democrats, need to convert this energy into targeting the source of the war: Bush and his advisors. Somewhere last night I read a piece in which the author pointed out that Wolfowitz and gang had been "failures" for years -- never convincing anyone of the value of their unilateralist theories -- and that these failures have led the current administration. I think that's likely true, and as Democrats, we need to start pointing fingers, getting specific.
Tar:
But how do we get from point A to point B?
Tartarin wrote:trespassers will wrote: Funny, I've thought all along that the protests were against the Bush administration. In fact, the only place they seem even to pretend otherwise is here in the states (and that not very effectively).
You're quite right, Tres -- they are (as opposed to being against the US in general). But as for the protests within our borders, they contain a variety of political colors and my point was that those of us who are, more or less, Democrats, need to convert this energy into targeting the source of the war: Bush and his advisors. Somewhere last night I read a piece in which the author pointed out that Wolfowitz and gang had been "failures" for years -- never convincing anyone of the value of their unilateralist theories -- and that these failures have led the current administration. I think that's likely true, and as Democrats, we need to start pointing fingers, getting specific.
Fair enough. For my part, I hope you do get Dems pointing fingers en masse, so that everyone is clear who deserves the praise for the success of this effort.
I find I agree with TW, to the extent that we should all desire clarity about to whom belongs the responsibility for whatever outcome this "war" produces.
Left and right are relative concepts.
A right-of-center European would be considered a leftist in the US.
Same thing happens with the term "liberal".
A European liberal is considered to be somewhat a conservative.
In the US, a conservative-liberal is an oxymoron.
In the American context, a social-democrat is often considered "radical left".
I am probably considered a "leftist" in A2K. Yet, I actively support a government which is considered "conservative" in my country.
Interesting about "conservative," fbaezer! Having lived mostly in Europe, I'm astounded at what passes for conservative here. We used to use the word "reactionary" more. I'd certainly consider the present administration radical. Radical nationalists. Ouch.
Aware that this could, as we old fashioned folks say, put the cat among the pigeons, I'd like to say that I'm hoping that this US invasion of a sovereign nation will be a god-awful flop and mess. The latest Paul Krugman article says it all: the last thing we want to do is let Bush get away with it (mess or not), justifying as he does an illegal and immoral Means by scripting a televisual, cynical End. I'm very glad I no longer have TV and will not see Americans pushing buttons, creating impressive fireworks displays against dark skies -- a sight which gratifies all the uncaring radical nationals and their militarist pawns among us.
Tartarin, I like your signature.
Tartarin
What would your reaction to this incursion if Iraq used the WMD's , that they did not have, or large caches of biological and chemical agents were uncovered. Would it than change your opinion as to it's haven't been necessary?
I should note I am not in favor of this preemptive attack, however, if these WMD's are found to exist, I would be among the many giving Bush an Atta boy. Would you?
Quote:I'd like to say that I'm hoping that this US invasion of a sovereign nation will be a god-awful flop and mess.
Could you repeat that for the record. Shame!
