|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: EvC against war: Sign here! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
[returning from an antiwar rally]
Last Saturday we see millions of people on the streets, from Madrid to Tokyo, NYC to Rio, protesting the war on Iraq. The majority has spoken against war. No, we are not defending Saddam; we want peace and nonviolence. The only people who want war are old buddies Bush & Osama, and Armageddon-crazed fundamnetalists. I've seen the world unite last Saturday. The people of Germany, France, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Austria, Belgium, Russia, Nigeria, Egypt, Syria, and even Australia, UK, and US, were saying the same voice: NO WAR! Fellow anti-war board members, please join us by posting in this thread! Against war!Andya Primanda
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
David unfamous Inactive Member |
At least 1,000,000 people marched in my capital London at the weekend. Democracy - what's it worth if our 'leaders' take no notice of us?
Show us the WOMD Bush et al. It's that simple. Otherwise keep war out of the equation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
This whole war is madness. I was at the march on Saturday (I've never been on any sort of demo before) - what else do the people in a so-called democracy do when the major parties don't represent their position?
I'm still pessimistic in that I think war is inevitable as far as the US is concerned. But I think its more than possible that the UK may yet pull our troops back (if not, then Blair will have to go). PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi all,
Democracy isn'tabout holding referendums on decisions, it is about electing representatives who you think will best represent your interests & POV. Sooooo.... you know who not to vote for next time around, right? What I'm trying to say is making an unpopular decision is not necessarily undemocratic. Taxes would never go up if that were the case, yet often it is the right decision to increase them. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
quote: Well no, not really The Tories and Labour both want to go to war. I'm not sure what the Lib Dems want, although Charles Kennedy is anti-war. And there wasn't a "Not going to war with Iraq" party at the time of the last election - nor was it an election issue, as far as I can recall. I agree with you that democracy should not be conducted by referendum, but it would be nice for the majority viewpoint in this country to be at least given a mainstream voice. (Incidentally, I don't hold with this amazingly stupid opinion poll question "would you support war if given UN backing?", as it implicitly connotes that the UN decision is completely independent of the actions of the UK. The question should be "Should Britain vote at the UN for or against war?". ) PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
[QUOTE] by mark24+++++++++++++++++++++
making an unpopular decision is not necessarily undemocratic ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ While this is true, decisions which are criminal or wreckless demand action by the populace beyond waiting till next election. For example Bush could decide to nuke the Palestinians next week. As you suggest, that decision would not be undemocratic, but it would be criminal and wreckless to the point that the governed must take back control. The fact is that Bush is violating US law if he launches this war (it is against the constitution). He has plenty of precedent with other presidents doing the same thing, but even his daddy asked for power first with such a major operation (against Iraq nonetheless). He is also violating international law by attacking a country (violating its sovereignty) without cause. Bush started by calling a war with Iraq a "pre-emptive strike." This gave his position some legitimacy along the lines of having to defend ourselves from a coming, inevitable attack by striking first. Unfortunately the evidence, while not necessarily discounting the presence of WMD's, clearly shows Iraq is not in a position or posture to attack the US. This removes any idea that this is a "pre-emptive strike". At most it is a pre-pre-emptive strike. This is not supported by international law, and finds no moral justification I can think of. Furthermore it is wreckless. To start with, it wrecks US standing in the world, injures our economy, and will possibly kill US military personnel (and let's not discount the fact that many reservists have been pulled out of families and careers for this). Furthermore, a military victory will not address the main issues of proliferation of WMD technology at all, proliferation of WMD items completely, and opens the door for worse activity in the uncertain government which would follow (many posit that it will be radically islamic which Hussein has been keeping at bay). If it needs any more weight, we have already called the UN into question in an "our way or the highway" mentality, Bush is willing to fracture NATO and the EU in order to get his way. And for anyone with foresight, it would set precedent for China to attack Taiwan and Tibet, India to attack Pakistan (or vice versa), and Isreal to overrun Palestine. Alone, the numbers of people demonstrating should have had an effect on the leaders(Blair and Bush)fronting this fiasco. There have been larger turnouts than at demonstrations during Vietnam and this is BEFORE a war has started. The fact that it has not made a dent in the resolve of these two men is telling. If they engage in such criminal and wreckless behavior it may come down to people having to pull them out of power. There are mechanisms for this in the US. The fact that we used them for a guy lying about a blowjob, should give us some courage. holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
quote:Ummm. Scary, huh! This must be why I haven't paid much attention to politics since I quit marching against war in 1970. If you know what's going on, it's likely to scare the pee out of you.... Yeah, put me in as against a war in Iraq. But don't tell my neighbors her in redneckland - they'd call me a commie pinko pervert Democrat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Arachnid Inactive Member |
No war.
BushSaddam Rumsfield Bin Laden The Octogon, Friday night. 20 bucks buys the whole seat but you'll only use the edge!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
In one of the other "war on Iraq" topics, someone from the pro-war side has tried to tie the current state of Iraq to that of Nazi Germany.
I'm more inclined to wonder if the U.S. is heading towards being the "Nazi Germany" of the new millennium. Against the war, as per the current known information, Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Arachnid Inactive Member |
Exactly what I've been saying for years. Glad someone else sees it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jdean33442 Inactive Member |
David Unfamous and PE:
1,000,000 people out of 59,778,002 (July 2002 est.) in the UK is hardly the majority. Democracy is prevailing whether you agree with it or not.
quote: Bush et al? Blair is as much of a warhawk as Bush is. I don't get where the press is painting Blair as an unwilling participant to war with Iraq. He is at every turn hand in hand with Bush.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jdean33442 Inactive Member |
quote: Liberalism has nullified any meaning the constitution holds. Why bother brining it up?
quote: Only those privy to the security information can make a statement like that. Iraq's deployment of WMD is not clearly known to us because the DoD doesn't want us to know. It's that simple.
quote: If the US is economically desolate, do you think the UN gives a flying crap? The UN will not lose anything if half the US is wiped out by biological warfare. A mock shoulder shrug at our dismay and the UN keeps on trucking. So why should the US but their faith in them?
quote: China has already stated it will take back Taiwan at all costs. That is inevitable. I could be wrong, but hasn't China already attacked Tibet? India and Pakistan will fight no matter what. None of these are good examples.
quote: Nice. Real nice. I like how you completely dismiss lying under oath because it was about getting head.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Arachnid Inactive Member |
quote: The Govt. should provide proof of WMD. There's no reason NOT to inform the public of Iraq's violations and show evidence. How does it compromise national security to say "Here are the bombs"?
quote: I completely agree with you. The international community doesn't care one bit for America and would not defend it were it attacked. The majority of third world aid comes from America. To my knowledge, no foreign country has offered the U.S. assistance in it's time of need. I think someone needs to kick Saddam's ass but i don't agree with our "reasons" for doing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
quote: What a spectacularly bizarre thing to say! Given that there were exactly zero people on the pro-war rally, then we can therefore conclude......? I wonder what you did mean by this. Did you mean that the Government should only not attack Iraq if more than 29,889,001 people turn up for an anti-war rally (emphasis on "more than" )? Or maybe you thought that I was unfairly making the inference that 1m + people on the march (the biggest demo in the nation's history) necessarily implied that the majority of the country was against the war? Or maybe you thought I might not realise that 1m was less than half of 59m? That, of course, would be astronomically idiotic of you, though not entirely unfeasible. Given your "democracy is prevailing" comment ("prevailing" against what exactly? "Evil"? "Terror"?) can I put my jdean hat on and extrapolate that you think "democracy is prevailing" in Iraq, also, where as you know Saddam had practically 100% approval at the last general election. Its difficult to know what you mean or where you're going without any more of substance from you. PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jdean33442 Inactive Member |
Government by popular representation is democracy. Do you understand this? 1,000,000 retarded stinking hippies - 59,778,002 of the population does not equal popular representation.
Allow me to put on my tea drinking, i've only seen a firearm at the movies, yellow teeth PE bowler and live in my coddled pseudoreality where war is not necessary and the minority is represented by Government. Iraq is not a democracy is it? But of course you know that. Just as you know that 100% of the Iraqi people voted in only 3 hours during that election? Oh yeah, you just want to be an ass. Cheerio old chap!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024