A thread on ANTI-WAR Protesters (a healthy serving of stupid inside)

[GUNWOUNDS]

the sound is really low.... turn it up ..

http://homepage.mac.com/evancm/brain-terminal/video/sf-2003-03-15/sf-2003-03-15-hq.wmv

[GUNWOUNDS]

The creator of this video was interviewed and i think he expresses his points most eloquently...

Questions are in yellow

Answers in orange

1. Why are you worried about Saddam Hussein? After all, it was al Qaeda that attacked us on September 11th, not Iraq.

People who keep making this point have obviously not spent any time trying to familiarize themselves with the arguments of the other side.

Nobody is making the claim that there is a direct link between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. That does not mean, however, that Iraq is somehow unrelated to the war on terror.

Saddam Hussein poses a direct threat to the United States because of his capacity to develop weapons. This threat may not necessarily manifest itself in Saddam attacking us directly. Instead, he can attack the United States by proxy. All he needs to do is supply weapons to al Qaeda, which is both willing and able to orchestrate an attack itself.

An alliance between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda is not far-fetched: they share a common enemy. True, Hussein's relatively secular government may be an anathema to Islamists like Osama bin Laden. But the U.S. detested the communist government of the Soviet Union, and this did not prevent us from allying with the Soviets in World War II. There's a reason for the maxim, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Recently, Saddam Hussein has been invoking radical Islam with increasing frequency. Perhaps Hussein believes that harnessing the hate of that movement will help him maintain power. This would explain why he's building mosques all over Iraq and offering $25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian bombers who die while killing Israelis.

Should we trust Saddam Hussein and hope that he does not enter into an alliance with al Qaeda? Should we wait to act until after we've been attacked?

2. How do you feel about western European objections to the position of the United States?

Without question, it is worrisome that a significant portion of the western European public seems opposed to the United States.

What's difficult to determine, however, is the motivation behind this opposition. Much of it seems to be utopian pacifism and general anti-Americanism. For the following reasons, we should temper our worry over European public opinion:

The European history of imperialism is far more extensive than that of the United States. In fact, the disarray of the Middle East and much of Africa is a direct result of Europe's misadventures in these regions. Perhaps the pacifism of Europe stems from imperial guilt. To the extent that this guilt motivates Europeans to oppose military action of any kind, it must be discounted because it has nothing to do with this particular conflict.

Some of the opposition is motivated by a general antipathy towards the United States and its role as the sole superpower in the world. Opposition of this form must also be discounted, because it sets up a double standard: the world may prevent the U.S. from acting in the interest of its security, but countries like France are free to act unilaterally for any reason, as it did when it recently dispatched troops to Ivory Coast without asking the world for permission first.

Europe, a continent with a supra-national bureaucracy and many socialist economic structures, has always had a distaste for more free-wheeling (and comparatively successful) economy of the United States. Judging from the number of people who cast the conflict in economic terms, jealousy of--or disdain for--our different economic system may motivate some of the opposition.

Politically, old Europe is much further to the left than the United States. Perhaps ideological differences are motivating some of our opponents. Or is it just a coincidence that European opposition to American policies always seems more acute when we have a Republican president?

During the Cold War, the United States provided for the defense of Europe. For four decades, Europe was relieved of the burden of having to worry about or deal with external threats; this had been the job of the United States. Is it any wonder, then, that Europe has a hard time perceiving threats? Is it any wonder that an atrophied Europe has no will to fight, under any circumstances?

Ultimately, it is important to remember that leadership sometimes requires making choices that are not popular. Prior to September 11th, if the United States had gone to war in Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda and the Taliban, much of the world would undoubtedly have been outraged by our actions. But if it could have prevented the attacks, would it have been justified? That probably depends on whether you're sipping cafe au lait on a sidewalk in Paris or visiting the grave of a loved one who was crushed to death in the crumbling towers.

3. How can you justify an action that will result in civilian casualties?

Nobody wants civilian casualties. Aside from being its own form of evil, it undermines the cause of those of us who are arguing for action.

However, when dealing with people like Saddam Hussein, it is not as simple as saying "we can't go to war against Iraq because there will be civilian casualties." Leaving Saddam in power will also lead to civilian casualties and it will perpetuate the subjugation of an entire nation and it will allow a developing threat to get greater.

It also seems rather disingenuous that the protesters would cite civilian casualties as a reason to leave Saddam Hussein in power. I don't recall any worldwide protests occurring after Saddam inflicted civilian casualties on his fellow Iraqis. Is it possible that the protesters only abhor these casualties when they occur in conflicts involving the United States?

4. The primary motivation behind this war is not freedom, so how can you use the liberation of Iraq to argue in favor of it?

True, the primary motivation is not to free the Iraqi people. But it is a laudable goal that would be a positive outcome of deposing Saddam. In this case, the interests of the United States are aligned with the interests of the Iraqi people. That's why it seems spiteful to deny freedom to the Iraqi people over disagreements with some of the other motives behind the action that would liberate them.

Some of the arguments against liberating Iraq are condescending and border on racist. I frequently hear statements like, "The people of Iraq come from too many disparate tribes. They've never lived in freedom before. They won't know how to handle it. It'll be a disaster."

If the people making these arguments had lived in the 1860s, would they have been making similar arguments against ending slavery?

5. Then why don't we liberate all the oppressed people of the world?

I think we should. But we'll need help.

6. Do you think inspections can work?

No. In order to work, inspections will take years and must constantly be backed by the threat of force. Until recently, inspectors hadn't been in Iraq since 1998. This prolonged absence was enabled because the world got distracted, started focusing on other things, and forgot about Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses. Why would we expect another years-long inspection regime to be any different?

Because much of the world has signaled it's unwillingness to use force under any circumstances, Saddam knows that the key to survival is waiting for the U.S. to waver. Hussein's hope is that he will one day face an American president with a more gelatinous constitution.

That's why he's doing all he can to drag out inspections indefinitely, just as he did in the 1990s. That's also why it's so troubling that others are falling for his game yet again.

7. Can't you at least admit that President Bush is a bully?

President Bush's invocation of the threat of force is the only reason the inspectors have returned to Iraq. Not even the most rabid rabble rouser would deny that.

That's why I find laughable the logic of those who support inspections while calling President Bush a bully: if it weren't for President Bush's so-called bullying, there would be no inspectors in Iraq right now. And, if he were a bully, he wouldn't have wasted months trying to cajole the United Nations into relevance by having them solve a 12-year-old problem once and for all.

8. Do you only back the United Nations when its decisions coincide with your opinions?

On this, I am entirely consistent. I don't back the United Nations at all. I believe that the United Nations, in structure and practice, is morally illegitimate and needs to be replaced.

9. Your question about keeping the Iraqi oil fields in 1991 was misleading. It was never an option because it wasn't part of the mandate for war. And, if we never took control of the oil fields, how could we keep them?

I find this question very amusing, considering it comes from the very people who are accusing the United States of being the world's bully and of using its military to achieve any economic objective.

If the United States was truly a militant bully that was seeking control of oil, then we could have (and would have) taken the oil fields (in 1991) regardless of what the underlying mandate for war happened to be. Who was going to stop us? The U.N.?

My question was designed to challenge the rhetoric of the protesters. The slogans shouted at the recent protests are not much different from those used during the first Gulf War. "This is a war for oil," the protesters claimed then as they do now. "We're just trying to take over the Iraqi oil fields."

But the protesters were wrong about their accusations in 1991, so why should we believe the exact same accusations now?

10. Why do you expect the protesters to have any solutions to the problem? It is not their job to propose solutions.

Perhaps not. But it undercuts your argument significantly if, while criticizing one course of action, you are unable to suggest any viable alternatives.

If the protesters are unable to present any reasonable alternatives to war, then one can logically conclude that the war is the only workable solution.

[emprworm]

2. How do you feel about western European objections to the position of the United States?

...

What's difficult to determine, however, is the motivation behind this opposition. Much of it seems to be utopian pacifism and general anti-Americanism

rofl!

[Edric O]

Yeah, we evil socialists have this weird idea in our heads called democracy. You see, we believe that the people are sovereign, and that the state exists to serve the will of the people. Therefore, we believe that when 90% of the people say DON'T GO TO WAR, the state SHOULDN'T GO TO WAR, regardless of anything else.

And by the way, the motivation behind our opposition to the war has nothing to do with pacifism (at least on my part). I oppose the war because no single country has the right to take unilateral action and invade another sovereign country, no matter the excuse.

The USA does not have the right to invade whoever it sees fit.

Oh, and the height of European imperialism was back in the days when rabid conservatives - like Bush & co. - used to rule over Europe.

[emprworm]

Yeah, we evil socialists have this weird idea in our heads called democracy. You see, we believe that the people are sovereign, and that the state exists to serve the will of the people. Therefore, we believe that when 90% of the people say DON'T GO TO WAR, the state SHOULDN'T GO TO WAR, regardless of anything else.

And by the way, the motivation behind our opposition to the war has nothing to do with pacifism (at least on my part). I oppose the war because no single country has the right to take unilateral action and invade another sovereign country, no matter the excuse.

The USA does not have the right to invade whoever it sees fit.

Oh, and the height of European imperialism was back in the days when rabid conservatives - like Bush & co. - used to rule over Europe.

whatever idea socialists have, it isn't much of a democracy.  socialists are all about thievery.  taking my property and redistributing it to someone else.  forcing my kids to go to public schools, etc.  socialists are about greed, envy, jealosy, theivery, intolerance, etc. etc.

[Edric O]

And Emprworm does it again! See kids, this is how you completely avoid the other guy's arguments and run like a coward, all the while appearing to be on the offensive! Remember the magic formula:

Take one word out of the other guy's post (in this case, the word "socialists") and rant on it. Never mind the rest of the post - that's not important at all! In fact, you should pretend it never existed!

[emprworm]

And Emprworm does it again! See kids, this is how you completely avoid the other guy's arguments and run like a coward, all the while appearing to be on the offensive! Remember the magic formula:

Take one word out of the other guy's post (in this case, the word "socialists") and rant on it. Never mind the rest of the post - that's not important at all! In fact, you should pretend it never existed!

the other guys' argument was already soundly defeated.  i ran only from the debris because i got sick of looking at it.

[Edric O]

Of course it was, Nav, of course it was... ::)

Oh, and as for what socialists want, it's called social justice. The redistribution of wealth from those who got obscenely rich from other people's labour to the poor people who actually carried out the labour. The eradication of poverty and the guarantee of certain basic living standards to every single human being. The opportunity for every child to benefit from a free education, equal to the one that any other child can benefit from. The guarantee of free health care for all. And so on...

[emprworm]

most socialists do not want to remove the insanely rich.  just the rich will do.

and you often ally yourself with most socialists.

[Edric O]

"Most socialists"? How many socialists do you know?

And you should be aware that socialists are, surprisingly enough, the people who support socialism. Not the people labeled as "socialists" by various hysterical American conservatives.

By the way, what happened to the "evil subversive communist" label? Has that fallen out of fashion?

[emprworm]

what is 'insanely rich'?

would billionaires George Sorros qualify?  Wasn't he born in Romania?  He has made it a personal mission to oust Bush.  He hates Bush with a passion.  He has said it is his life goal now.

IN fact, I was doing some research and noticed that most of the worlds billionaires are marxists and espouse socialism.  They would definately NOT endorse Bush.

Warren Buffet, 2nd wealthiest man in the world is campaigning against Bush, and believes in a socialist system.

Socialists are usually the wealthiest of them all.  George Bush makes only 200,000 a year.  Thats a crap salary compared to what George Sorros the billionaire european bush hating socialist makes.

[Wolf]

I feel that the response to Question 2 may be accurate; although the people of Europe may be against the war for moral reasons, the leadership of Europe cannot cloak their actions in moral altruism, because of the discounts France received for Iraqi oil, and the sales Russia made to Iraq for infared goggles and other military equipment. Furthermore, that Western Europe, along with the US, invaded Kosovo in 1999 without a UN mandate, the Western European nations really waived the right to demand the US seek a mandate when they, 4 years ago, did not seek that mandate themselves. Granted, neither did the US, but we don't see the US losing sleep over mandates, now do we? I feel that the European governments attempt to cloak their actions in moral rigtheousness that they do not have; much in the same way the United States attempted to cloak its war in the mantle of liberation. However, perhaps Iraqis were liberated? Indeed, it is a quandry, and one reason why I am reluctant to decalre either completely prowar or antiwar; liberation has, at least for now, achieved. On the other hands, the means to achieve that liberation were morally questionable. At the same time, as the US' actions have proven to be morally ambiguous, I can make the same claim for Europe, and am thus dismayed when I see no real difference between either the prowar or antiwar camps.

[Edric O]

would billionaires George Sorros qualify?  Wasn't he born in Romania?  He has made it a personal mission to oust Bush.  He hates Bush with a passion.  He has said it is his life goal now.

And do you have any actual quotes (from any actual public statements), or did the voices in your head tell you that?

IN fact, I was doing some research and noticed that most of the worlds billionaires are marxists and espouse socialism.

Yeah, and they're all part of a vast communist conspiracy, working with the little green men from the planet Zorak to take over the world... ::)

According to marxism, those billionaires are thieves who made their immense wealth off the work of their employees. Also according to marxism, they should put all their means of production (all of their companies and corporations) into the hands of the people, and a large portion of their wealth should be nationalized and used for the public good.

So, in order to be a marxist, a billionaire would first of all have to say in public: "I am a thief!" Then he would have to hand over his companies to the workers, and distribute most of his wealth to the poor.

And last time I checked, the world's billionaires weren't in an awful hurry to do that...

Socialism is a system that makes it impossible for any one man to accumulate such obscenely vast amounts of wealth as those currently held by the world's billionaires. So by supporting socialism, a billionaire would be saying that he doesn't deserve to have as much money as he does.

And how many billionaires say that?

They would definately NOT endorse Bush.

Of course not. The capitalist ruling class has divided interests. One interest group supports Bush, others oppose it.

Socialists are usually the wealthiest of them all.

Then why aren't "the richest of them all" dismantling the capitalist system, socializing their corporations and spending their wealth on public programs?

Because the rich have never supported any form of socialism. Learn some 19th century history, for God's sake, and you'll see how the socialist movement was formed out of the struggle of the working class for democracy, freedom and equality. Socialism was created by the people, for the people.

[emprworm]

And do you have any actual quotes (from any actual public statements), or did the voices in your head tell you that?

proof that you dont know a whole lot of wealthy people of the world.

[Warskum]

proof that you dont know a whole lot of wealthy people of the world.

[Egeides]

The "stupid side" is on every side. There are some acting out of emotions on all sides, while there are some articulate debaters on both sides. It's just sad that the articulate debaters that are too leftish will be permitted less (if not at all) to be on talkshows and else in the medias, more espescially Fox.

[Edric O]

sorry, Edric, but the richest men on earth do not like capitalism.

Notice the stupidity: Emprworm doesn't seem to notice that the richest men in the world GOT RICH THANKS TO CAPITALISM.

In a socialist system, they would have never been able to get so obscenely rich. And in a communist system, they would have been equal to everyone else.