Fact: The vast majority of anti-war protesters are morons.
As if the world needed more proof of this fact, listen to an Iraqi immigrant dismantle an anti-war protester on a radio show.
LINK
In light of recent break-ins and destruction of property at military installations in the US, the Californian Vandenberg Air Force Base has reiterated the fact that it’s guards are permitted to use lethal force against intruders. More power to them. LINK
Finally, for those of you who need JUST ONE MORE good reason to loathe the Head Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkey (Chirac of France)… “It’s your mess, say French with disdain” LINK
All above links found at Little Green Footballs
Speaking of France… the thing that so greatly irks me here is this: the citizens of France are only such because we gave them that opportunity. We, the United States of America, saved their ass in WWII… if it hadn’t been for us, every one of them would be speaking German right now. Now that it’s our national security at stake, they fold their arms and shake their fingers at us.
What’s more, apparently France has acted unilaterally to implement regime change 37 times since 1960. Without UN support. Now… what’s that about the pot calling the kettle black? LINK. (This one is courtesy of Inoperable Terrain)
About
SEC Football
- Auburn Fan Outlook Is Bleak for the Iron Bowl
- Auburn RB Brad Lester Predicts Two Wins at Amen Corner by 'A Good Number of Points'
- 'Bama Doesn't Know They Can't Win Out
- Will Fulmer's Departure Force Auburn's Hand?
- Georgia School Districts Shut Down for Georgia/Florida Game
March 18th, 2003 at 2:37 am
i listened to that little sound file, and perhaps if that asshole had quit interrupting that girl then she might have been able to make a point. i haven\’t heard one single anti-war protester say that saddam hussein should remain in power. in fact, i think anti-war people and pro-war people (because after all, what the fuck else am i supposed to call them?) both agree that the iraqi people deserve a democracy. the only difference is, anti-war activists don\’t want innocent iraqi\’s blood on their hands. like that immigrant said, innocent people WILL die. and what is the u.s.\’s reasoning for this war? the u.s. claims that hussein has weapons of mass destruction and ties to al queda. the evidence for their theories? uhhh….oh yeah, there\’s not any. another rationalization is the fact that he\’s killed millions of his own citizens. so we\’re gonna go out and kill oh, maybe only thousands of his citizens? if the u.s. is gonna pull this do-gooder bullshit on iraq then after we spend billions upon billions of dollars on this war, we should really go all around the world and forcefully change the regimes of every other country out there that kills their own citizens and inflicts cruel and unusual punishment and stones women after they\’ve been raped and performs female circumsisions and inflicts any other acts of cruelty up on their people. Why don\’t we do that? because we don\’t have anything to gain from it. Pete, face it, we have a LOT to gain from a war with iraq. If we take saddam out and help institute a democracy don\’t you think we\’d end up completely controlling that land? honestly, have you been so duped by the government that you don\’t see their very simple plan? we take saddam out and kill a few thousand innocent people in the process, and then we profit from their land. Every single government in the world has, will, and is lying to their citizens. And you think we\’re going to spend billions, go against the u.n., and sacrifice lives all because we\’re the good guys? come on pete, wake up and smell the oil. your government has lied to you. and this won\’t be the last time.
March 18th, 2003 at 4:26 am
Maybe those who are against the were misrepresented in this debate. She was given a chance to speak but she clearly avoided the issue and her laughing during some parts debate was clearly rude.
I am not for war unless it is clearly necessary and in this case it is. Iraq had twelve years to disarm and after many weapons inspections it has come to this.
What will more pestering of Saddam do? Will it free Iraq? When will force be necessary? After he launches bio-chemical warfare on other countries? Enforcing weak U.N resolutions aren\’t working as he still sits in power, killing his own people.
OUR Government has always lied to us. That\’s not anything new. Yes, Iraq is rich in oil but to imply that it is one of the main reasons of this war is to be ignorant of history and current events.
Lastly, if you don\’t think war is the right thing that is your opinion, as what have I just stated is mine. At least support the troops overseas who are dedicating their lives to protecting our freedom here.
March 18th, 2003 at 8:39 am
You know, Joan, you just perpetuated my belief that the peace mongers love to say that there\’s no evidence for war, but never provide any against. Sure, you\’ve got feelings, ideals, and conspiracy theories but it comes down to this:
UN Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in MATERIAL BREACH of previous resolutions demanding that they disarm. It promised \”serious consequences as a result of its continued violations.\”
Further, anti-war folks have a lot of questions to answer in regards to to a New York Times article by Dr. Condoleezza Rice which gives very clear evidence to believe that Iraq has, and will continue to, deceive UN Inspectors. (Article reprint here.)
As far as your claim that there\’s no evidence that they\’re tied to al quede or actually have said weapons, you have a lot of evidence to discredit which was presented to the UN Security Council by Colin Powell on February 5. (Transcript and Slides here)
So there\’s your evidence. There\’s your proof. Where\’s your counterpoint?
BTW: spending billions and billions of dollars on oil? Oh please… if that\’s all we wanted, we could give Iraq HALF of that and get more than we ever would from an invasion. When the war is over, we won\’t control Iraq. To my knowledge we\’re not in control of any other countries we\’ve liberated.
So step up to the table. If you think the anti-war position is so clear and logical… make your case. Saying it\’s about oil, or that the Gov\’t lied to us… well… that\’s great… but you\’ve gotta be able to back it up.
March 18th, 2003 at 9:25 am
I don\’t believe that most anti-war protestors are morons. You just hear more about those with less than stellar ways of making their point. Makes for better news I guess.
March 18th, 2003 at 9:33 am
I don\’t believe that most PEOPLE who are anti-war are morons. But virtually all of the protesters that I\’ve come across, and those that I\’ve read about, would fall into that category as far as I\’m concerned.
It\’s quite unfortunate that all the stupid people can\’t just get on the same side of an issue, though… there are plenty of folks in favor of military force to disarm iraq that I wish were on the other side of the issue.
By and large I\’ve found that the people who make the best cases against war aren\’t the ones skipping class to protest. Of course, I\’ve always believed that if you REALLY have a point and something important to say, a letter will get your point across much more effectively than protesting.
At any rate, I\’m sure they\’re not ALL morons… but boy would I like to meet one that\’s not.
March 18th, 2003 at 4:31 pm
See, the problem is that there are morons on BOTH sides. And whenever you lump everyone into narrow, black or white categories then you lump in the screaming idiots with the people who\’ve actually thought over their positions.
It\’s why many women are hesitant to call themselves feminists - that name conjures up negative stereotypes for some.
In any case, since we do seem to be going to war, it seems particularly foolish to be pissing off former allies. Unless we want to end up fighting *everyone.*
And I give us an F in diplomacy.
So does the President\’s father, btw.
But we\’ll let Georgie retake that class in summer school…
March 18th, 2003 at 4:35 pm
Oh and you ALWAYS get into trouble whenever you\’re dealing with a cause people feel they can rationally skip class for. Because anyone loves a legit excuse to skip class and feel good about it.
Secretly, this goes for professors as well, we just don\’t talk about it.
I had the same problem criticising the anti-aparthied protests as an undergrad. Everyone kept getting pissed off with me when I said I didn\’t see how skipping Coke with dinner was going to help. I think the sit ins probably did help, I was wrong about that - and our school did end up divesting in any aparthied supporting companies. We kept Coke products on campus though, I notice. I\’m pretty sure Coke\’s probably still just as evil though. I\’m still drinking the stuff, can\’t help it….
March 18th, 2003 at 4:43 pm
well, first of all, manny, you say that that girl\’s laughter was rude. and it wasn\’t rude to call her a \”little girl\” and refuse to let her speak? yeah..ok…
pete, you want evidence that there\’s no case for war? oh, maybe the fact that un inspectors didn\’t find any weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell\’s statements are based on suspicion and there is no hard evidence to say that iraq has weapons of mass destruction. perhaps if bush had not given the march 17th deadline, they would have found something. (and don\’t give me that 12 year bullshit, because if they haven\’t found anything in 12 years, what should that tell you?) Then we would have a case for \”serious consequences.\” Perhaps you should stop reading the united states\’s completely government controlled biased media (and don\’t tell me otherwise, have you SEEN fox news lately?????) you could see that the rest of the world is looking at this as the united states being arrogant and aggressive. the british are calling tony blair \”bush\’s bitch\” and well, australia, come on…they\’re the mississippi of the world.
lately, i\’ve been reading my world news at guardian.co.uk. here\’s a little something from it.
\”The prohibition of the use of force is a foundational rule of international law. Only two exceptions are permitted: the use of force in self-defence, or with the express authorisation of the UN security council exercising its powers under chapter VII of the UN charter.
Iraq has not attacked the US, the UK or their allies, nor is there any evidence that it is about to do so. Force may only be used in self-defence in response to an actual or (according to some commentators) an imminent armed attack. Therefore any arguments based on self-defence fail. What the US national security strategy has advocated are pre-emptive attacks on countries which may threaten the US. The use of armed force in such circumstances is contrary to international law…Security council resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. Any attack on Iraq would consequently be illegal.\”
You\’re right, 1441 does say that there will be serious consequences if iraq doesn\’t adhere to the UN sanctions. it does not say, however, that the united states should go over there and kick some ass regardless of whether or not the UN consents to war. why does the united states have immunity from international laws? oh yeah, we don\’t.
you can say that i have my conspiracy theories. whatever. that doesn\’t hurt my feelings because its ignorant drivel. if you\’d open your eyes and look around you, shake off your american patriotism and try to understand the rest of the world\’s views on this subject, maybe you could get past all the media bullshit and outright lies from the president and see the truth.
i have not actively protested the war. it\’s pretty obvious that protesting accomplishes jack shit. and to be completely honest, hussein probably does have weapons of mass destruction and is hiding them, but are we supposed to go to war and risk thousands of lives because we\’re suspicious? and even if you think we should, shouldn\’t we have permission from the UN first? but, we\’re going to go to war anyway. and since its coming we have to make the best of it. hopefully, after the war we will follow through and help institute an actual democracy in iraq. we all know what happened when we didn\’t follow through with afghanistan. and to say that we won\’t have control over them after we go in there and forcefully change the regime is ignorant. we will work out some sort of deal where we get the upper hand. we won\’t directly control them, but it\’s ridiculous to say that we\’re going over there expecting nothing in return.
March 18th, 2003 at 5:10 pm
She made no effort to answer his questions because she had no answers.
Your entire second paragraph is pointless, you have yet to address Dr. Rice\’s comments on Iraq\’s unwillingness to submit to carry out their end of the bargain.
Have you read 1441? Or 678? Here\’s a quote from both: \”The Security Council, … Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,\”
The United Nations HAS authorized the use of force against Iraq under Chapter VII. Several times. 1441 is one of them. That\’s what the legal counsel of the US, UK, Spain, Austrailia, Turkey, Kuwait, and dozens of other nations who are supporting this initiative.
I find it interesting that Fox news is the example all the silly liberals use to call the media conservative. Suddenly we\’ve forgotten about all of the other major networks that lean so far to the left they damn near fall over. Dan Rather looks like he hasn\’t had his V8 yet.
You\’re welcome to whatever opinion you\’d like to have. That\’s the great thing about being in this country. The Government has put forth compelling, factual, and tangible evidence that Iraq has the weapons. Saddam is doing as little as possible to keep the UN from siding with the US. Neither you, nor any other anti-war folk, have been able to say anything except \”War is bad! Bush is dumb! It\’s illegal!\”
Britains parliament granted support by the margin of 412 to 149. There are 45 nations granting support to the United States.
A telling factor to me, here, is that nobody\’s wanting to help out Iraq. Not a single country (except Jordan. Maybe.) has allied with Iraq to help protect them. Do you know what that says? It says that the rest of the world knows that what we\’re doing isn\’t wrong. If it were Illegal, the UN would be acting out against it. Sure… we\’d all PREFER a diplomatic resolution, but that just wasn\’t in the cards.
You\’ve got a blog. Leave your anarchism there. If you want to debate HERE, it\’d be useful for you to try to answer the questions, instead of dodging them.
The anti-war camp is going to sit down and shut up when Iraq breaks out its Chemical and Biological weapons to use against our troops. They\’re going to reconsider their opinions when Al Queda starts kicking up a fuss here at home. Those things are what the anti-war folks want to see to legitimize the war. That\’s the smoking gun they\’re after. And, sadly, I have a feeling that they\’re going to get it.
March 18th, 2003 at 6:05 pm
this will be my last post…well, i didn\’t read all of that response. i\’ve obviously angered you enough for you to ask me to keep my \”anarchist\” beliefs to my own livejournal. i\’ll do that. i just hope someday in the future you open your eyes and understand what\’s really going on in the world. i doubt you will, considering your extreme closemindedness. have fun.
March 18th, 2003 at 8:08 pm
If it\’s closedmindedness to want someone to defend their points with reason and facts, then that\’s exactly what I am. Sorry.
March 19th, 2003 at 4:57 am
He explained why he called her a \”little girl\” and even the announcer implied she was childish. She CLEARLY avoided the issue. As are you on this thread.
If you dislike the fact we are helping to free the Iraqi People, eliminate a threat to the free world and \”American Patriotism,\” then you can kiss my red, white and blue ass.
March 19th, 2003 at 8:27 am
Dude… red, white, and blue? You really ought to get that looked at.
March 19th, 2003 at 9:18 am
I didn\’t read through it all, just wanted to comment that the last time the world let a country ignore a disarmorment treaty after a war, Adolf Hitler was elected to power and proceeded to wipe his ass with the treaty until his military was strong enough to take over most of Europe.
You\’d think the French of all people would understand why allowing madmen to have weapons is bad, but then again these are the same morons who left their left flank unprotected because Holland and Belgium were neutral. The Germans would never come through neutral countries to attack them.
March 19th, 2003 at 10:17 am
Sean… you really need to open your eyes. Our government has been lying to us all this time. Iraq probably isn\’t even a real country.
In fact, I bet outside of the US is just a big barren wasteland. If you travel overseas you just get taken to an island and brainwashed to believe that you went somewhere else.
Oh, and we never landed on the moon. And your neighbors are government spies.
See, it\’s all so very clear. Why go to war with a country that doesn\’t exist? It\’s all a farce! Open your eyes, Sean… the damn republicans have been lying to us FOR-EV-ER!
March 19th, 2003 at 11:30 am
After so many repeated arguments you just have to follow the KISS rule. In all my reading on this war I have come across a couple of points that make it REAL simple.
1. Out of Bush and Sadam, Sadam is the bad guy.
2. If you do not want to support the government elected by the people of the United States, GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE COUNTRY!
I would like to reflect that by #2, it is not meant that if you are against the war you are against the US, BUT if we go to WAR and you do not support our government, our troops, and our nation, get the fuck out. It\’s real simple.
March 19th, 2003 at 1:43 pm
Pete…I don\’t think man landed on the moon, none of the men I know can find their way around Birmingham.
But I am actually doubtful of the whole moon thing…
March 19th, 2003 at 2:12 pm
You just don\’t know the right men, Kelly. Birmingham is small potatoes.
March 19th, 2003 at 2:23 pm
Kelly, you really shouldn\’t discount the difficulty of finding your way around Birmingham, after all, we know where the moon is.
March 19th, 2003 at 2:37 pm
Ahhh Daniel, my easily convinced friend… you just THINK you know where the moon is. In fact, however, all you know is where the Government TELLS you the moon is.
Such sheep of the government are disheartening.
March 19th, 2003 at 4:15 pm
The Internet is a conspiracy too yo.