Antiwar protests.

I read that as sacrificing 1,000 American lives to prove a point. How else can it be read?

I'd read it as passionate, if not well thought out. Fear, anger, and frustration often engender responses more of the emotional than critical sort, I think. The powerlessness felt by those opposed to the attack on Iraq certainly generates a fury. If one is willing to spend lives "to prove a point", one casts doubt on the value of the point to be proven. And no, I do not see what Bush the Younger is doing as "proving a point".

Quite to my satisfaction, "The Point" is that 12 years of defiance are coming to an end, and the world is about to be relieved of a murderous, despotic, cynical tyrant. "The Point" is made. So is the decision to attack. Wishing for American casualties to prove the evil of war is precisely the mindset which permits violence at anti-war protests.

Tartarin can clarify, but wasn't it in the context of if these people had to die anyway? I think we all agree that we want as few casualties as possible, period.

You got it, Sozobe! I think Au is loaded for bear and shootin' at gnats. "If I had to choose" is the way I put it, I think. I'm sticking to my principles, Au, and I don't really want to be drawn into arguments about things I didn't say. As I just posted on another thread, I (and I'm not alone) believe that both this administration and this war are illegimate and wrong. I don't want to see a single life lost. Our military should be used only to defend democracy and honor -- not Bush, and not as an invading force in an illegal action. I believe they are being used now as a result of deliberate diplomatic failures on the part of the Bush administration.

Re: antiwar protests and the challenges they face: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,917953,00.html

nimh - If your position on this war is one reached through more consideration than your previous comments suggested, I respect that. Regardless, I did find that those comments lacked any acknowledgement of the consequences of not acting. It is very easy to decry war when you point to all the negative things that can come of it, whilst pretending ignorance of all the negative things that can come of not going to war.

But, if you feel you have weighed all of that and concluded this war is not warranted, I can respect that. I hope that you can respect that I have likewise weighed the information available to me, and concluded that it is.

Tres, I think you meant to post that here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5312&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=140

Yeh, he didnt react to that one, did he? ... <shakes head>. Still interested in what your response there would be, Tres.

The kind of post you just posted here on the other hand doesnt really invite any answer. The whole "If your position on this war is one reached through more consideration than your previous comments suggested [..] I did find that those comments lacked any acknowledgement of ..." thing. If that is your way of expressing "respect" for someone else's opinion I pity those whose opinion you don't respect. Most interestingly, your post included no single argument in response to my lengthy post here, and instead just reiterated: "well, and I still believe what I believe anyway". Good for you.

Anyway, I've often enough written about this balancing of dangers, of intervention vs containment - only actually coming out explicitly against the war after the US decided to just plain ignore the majority Security Council opinion this week - whereas I have heard very little if any soulsearching from you about what the dangers of what you are proposing would be. You mostly seem to repeat the various pro-war arguments.

As for the dangers of inaction, I have seen many listed only to see them one by one deserted again when there turned out to be no credible evidence for them. First it was the Iraqi nukes, which turned out not to exist, then it was the ties with Al-Qaeda, which turned out not to exist. The only weapons the inspectors found were missiles that could reach just a few miles beyond what had been allowed in the resolution. We are merely meant to believe Bush on his word that he has intelligence information, that he can not share with us, that show there is a danger to world security beyond that.

I tend to not believe world powers on their word. I was shocked to hear him, this past night, again justify the war by pointing to Iraq's (unproven) possession of WMD and then suggesting those could at any time explode over US cities if we didnt act now - when there hasn't been a shred of evidence that Iraq's WMD would suddenly turn up in the hands of terrorists attacking America.

What then remains is a nasty dictatorship that was being gradually forced to destroy whatever weapons it still had, was policed by no-fly zones and regular strategic air raids, suffered under an economic boycott and no longer exercised control over its once vulnerable Kurdish population. To my mind the danger such a dictatorship, however nasty, would pose to the outside world would be relaytively limited in comparison with the dangers of the action the US is now undertaking - as is shown even right now, as I just picked up from BBC News that Turkey, which has not yet OK'd the deployment of American soldiers from its territory, has declared it will send out its own troops into North-Iraq - where the Kurds understandably already announced they will fight them if they do.

Anyway, we both have enough "respected opinions" to base our own on - I can refer to that of Nelson Mandela, Mary Robinson, Robin Cook, Kofi Annan, Jean Chretien, Hans Blix, well, et cetera - you to that of Tony Blair and IDS, of Aznar, Berlusconi, Howard and of course a range of American politicians.

Noitsme, sozobe, tartarin and all - appreciating your contributions particularly. It is especially helpful to hear "fresh" voices - I have been taking more time to read posts and scroll back and forth to the interchanges relevant.

I don't remember which thread had a poster saying that if you disagree with the actions taken by administrations, just wait and use the "vote". It is too far away, too long from now, and this is an emergency, not merely an event one 'sits through'!

Cobalt: Have you signed the "Vote to Impeach" petition?

Yes, as a matter of fact, not only signed it, but feature it on a few blogs and sites I have! Also, very pleased with both the Vote No War AND the Vote to Impeach sites:

Vote to Impeach organization: Ramsey Clark Articles of Impeachment

Vote No to War organization

cobalt

I may be naive but what impact do you think this vote to impeach petition will accomplish. It is almost like baying at the moon.
I have as little use for Bush as you and if there was a chance that they would be meaningful I would surely be with you. However, exercises in futility do not turn me on.

au1929,

The following is from the Washington Moonie Right-Wing Times, of all sources:

Will Bush be impeached? Will he be called a war criminal? These are not hyperbolic questions. Mr. Bush has permitted a small cadre of neoconservatives to isolate him from world opinion, putting him at odds with the United Nations and America's allies.

What better illustrates Mr. Bush's isolation than the fact that he delivered his March 16 ultimatum to the U.N. concerning Iraq from an air base in the Azores, where there was no prospect for massive demonstrations against his policy. Standing with Mr. Bush against the world were Britain and Spain.

The U.S., once a guarantor of peace, is now perceived in the rest of the world as an aggressor. Its victim is a small Muslim nation unable to defend its own air space, much less to project power beyond its borders. If Iraqis attempt to resist invasion, they will be slaughtered.

A reckless path

PDiddie
Yes, Yes, but will all these petitions get him impeached. No more chance than a snowball in hell.

Au -- It's not ABOUT turning one on, for heaven's sake! I didn't sign it because it turned me on. In fact, I didn't sign it for a long time because I hoped for something better. BUT, imperfect though it may be, it does carry the message that many of us find Bush to have persistently disdained the law. That's what makes it an important petition to sign rather than hang on the sidelines. The kind of futility you describe is the futility of the lazy and spoiled, the pettifoggers and hairsplitters. The way you make it a useful and effective petition is by joining others in signing it if you believe the truth of it, make it one more trickle of opinion that erodes his power.

Tartarin



Do you believe in trickle down economics as well.
There is one way and one way only to get rid of Bush and his fellow conspirators and that is through the vote. It is time you came to grip with that fact.

When will the MIT and Harvard protesting fools leave the Charles River bridge so the WORKING TAXPAYERS can get home at night.

Must be nice to be a spoiled, rich student at MIT and Harvard!

Or one of the many protesters yesterday who took off from work to protest, hauled out hurting bodies in wheelchairs to vote, put on part of their Vietnam war uniforms to protest.

(If you live in New Haven, you'll know that a high percentage of Yale students are there on scholarship and work study programs -- even more so, I believe, at MIT. Harvard's endowment allows a huge number of very bright but hardly rich students not only into Harvard College but into graduate work later at the university. I'm getting really, really tired of caricatures, straw men, and people who deride responsible protesters.)

You seem to be spoiling for a fight. That makes one of us. :wink:

Maybe I wasn't clear. You made comments that seemed to ignore the repercussions of taking no action. I challenged you for that (seeming) position. You responded with a more detailed accounting of your position, in light of which I was trying to acknowledge that your point of view seems not to be as overly simplistic as it previously seemed to me. At this point I stated that I respected your position and disagreed with it.

And you have a problem with this for what reason exactly?

Actually, don't answer that. (sigh)

PDiddie - When you quote the NYTimes, do you write "The New York Ultra-Liberal Times"?

Just curious...