Peace Rallies
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Keep a cool head folks! I really do believe that the vast majority of right-thinking people would much prefer not to "go to war" after all, burying one´s head in the sand is so much easier but these same right-thinking people know that Sadam and his ilk have GOT to be reined in for the sake of all of us. We have political activists here who would profess to be members of anything BUT the communist party or religious extremist groups, however only yesterday a mosque was raided in north London and guns, cs gas, fake passports and credit cards were seized along with 7 persons un-named. The "leader" of the mosque (who has been under investigation for some time) stated categorically that the mosque was NOT being used for purposes other than prayer and that the stories were merely propaganda!! At least three previous visitors to the mosque have been directly involved in terror activities (one is Reed the Shoe Bomber and another is incarcerated in the US for similar terrorist involvement in Afganistan). STILL certain people in this country protest that the police had NO RIGHT to invade the privacy of a mosque - the majority DO NOT!
Good Luck and remember THERE ARE NO REDS UNDER THE BED!
Good Luck and remember THERE ARE NO REDS UNDER THE BED!
wow I agree with you! 
Anyone with half a brain should be against war at MOST costs. Sometimes it can´t be avoided. I´m sure no on in the 40´s would have though the US should have just tried to work with hitler. Well I´m sure there were some but... they lost thank god.
Yeah I´m glad to see the brits rounding people up that are linked to the Ricin thing
Anyone with half a brain should be against war at MOST costs. Sometimes it can´t be avoided. I´m sure no on in the 40´s would have though the US should have just tried to work with hitler. Well I´m sure there were some but... they lost thank god.
Yeah I´m glad to see the brits rounding people up that are linked to the Ricin thing
I don´t have a problem going to war if there´s no alternative. My biggest problem is that we´re gearing up to blow the hell out of Iraq and yet WE the people who will be funding this war aren´t privy to the "secret" information. While I am a Bush supporter, I find this aggression toward Iraq a bit suspect. All this waiting, and sharing info with other countries. Just post the papers or the pictures or whatever and let´s be done with it. If that means remaking the Middle East, so be it. But let´s quit pussy-footing around and make a decision either way.
I´d have to agree with you on that.
however I do feel there is more than enough evidance to show how badly the people of iraq have it. maybe we can do for iraq what we did in afganistan (sp?) and europe in the 40´s. I´d like to hope so.
however I do feel there is more than enough evidance to show how badly the people of iraq have it. maybe we can do for iraq what we did in afganistan (sp?) and europe in the 40´s. I´d like to hope so.
Joined
·
85 Posts
I guess I have a classic Canadian perspective on this.
If you want peace you should be willing to meet war with war. But that has been used as an excuse to start wars which otherwise would not have happened. So peaceful countries have to launch peacemaking campaigns jointly, through international organizations.
The US (unlike Canada -- grrrr) is one of few nations willing to put their own people´s lives on the line (not to mention spend billions of dollars) to stop aggression elsewhere. Though North America´s reliance on oil makes me suspicious as to why Iraq is the US´s next target, I am impressed that Bush went through the UN. The UN should now puts its money (wait, that´s mostly UN money too! ) where its mouth is: If Iraq has failed to comply with the resolution, the Security Council should back the US to the hilt and so should the US´s allies.
Just a thought: More Somalias might have given the US more support than it´s getting now. America took a moral stand when it intervened in Somalia; it had no strategic interests there. That was the right thing to do and it deserved more praise than it got, especially from its own people. If there had been more Somalias, fewer people could question the US´s desire to remove a warmongering dictator in the Middle East.
Other opinions welcome, of course
- Rob
If you want peace you should be willing to meet war with war. But that has been used as an excuse to start wars which otherwise would not have happened. So peaceful countries have to launch peacemaking campaigns jointly, through international organizations.
The US (unlike Canada -- grrrr) is one of few nations willing to put their own people´s lives on the line (not to mention spend billions of dollars) to stop aggression elsewhere. Though North America´s reliance on oil makes me suspicious as to why Iraq is the US´s next target, I am impressed that Bush went through the UN. The UN should now puts its money (wait, that´s mostly UN money too!
) where its mouth is: If Iraq has failed to comply with the resolution, the Security Council should back the US to the hilt and so should the US´s allies.Just a thought: More Somalias might have given the US more support than it´s getting now. America took a moral stand when it intervened in Somalia; it had no strategic interests there. That was the right thing to do and it deserved more praise than it got, especially from its own people. If there had been more Somalias, fewer people could question the US´s desire to remove a warmongering dictator in the Middle East.
Other opinions welcome, of course
- Rob
Joined
·
1,927 Posts
of course, the initial thought taht came to my mind when i read the post subject line was, "cool! someone´s rally racing and donating the winnings to peace funds!" or something like that...ehehe silly me
Rob,
Two points:
1. I´m glad he went through the U.N. also. the sad thing is it seems to be showing how inept the U.N. really is? It worries me!
2. Even if it were ONLY about oil is that so bad? Without major markets would take a very large hit. which effects more than just American gas prices! I personally think there are better things to die for but combine this with something else such as terrible treatment of your people etc and you´ve got a decent reason.
This is interesting. Its cool to get an idea what everyone thinks of this outside of the US. Especially from folks that are not scared about not being 100% "PC".
P.S. I read somewhere that the oil from iraq goes mainly to the EU countries so it doesn´t really effect us a lot anyway. If I can find that article again I´ll post it.
Two points:
1. I´m glad he went through the U.N. also. the sad thing is it seems to be showing how inept the U.N. really is? It worries me!
2. Even if it were ONLY about oil is that so bad? Without major markets would take a very large hit. which effects more than just American gas prices!
I personally think there are better things to die for but combine this with something else such as terrible treatment of your people etc and you´ve got a decent reason.This is interesting. Its cool to get an idea what everyone thinks of this outside of the US. Especially from folks that are not scared about not being 100% "PC".
P.S. I read somewhere that the oil from iraq goes mainly to the EU countries so it doesn´t really effect us a lot anyway. If I can find that article again I´ll post it.
I, obviously mistakenly, have always believed the UN was the "World´s Police Force." However, were it not for the US assuming this role themselves, the world´s dictators would have free rein to do exactly as they please, with no interference from any other nations. Is that what the peace activists want?
I hear on the UK news this morning that Germany (along with France) is refusing to condone any action by the US and UK without a further resolution from the UN. This would mean that we two countries will have to ´go-it-alone." I, along with everyone else I´m sure, hope that it will not come to this but should it do so I would like to think that only good will result for the people of Iraq.
I have been totally disillusioned by the lack of action from the UN over the years and am glad the US and UK are prepared to stand up and be counted and have to believe they are doing it for the right reasons.
I am now even more sure I do NOT wish to be any more involved with the European Union than at present - I AM ENGLISH!!!
I hear on the UK news this morning that Germany (along with France) is refusing to condone any action by the US and UK without a further resolution from the UN. This would mean that we two countries will have to ´go-it-alone." I, along with everyone else I´m sure, hope that it will not come to this but should it do so I would like to think that only good will result for the people of Iraq.
I have been totally disillusioned by the lack of action from the UN over the years and am glad the US and UK are prepared to stand up and be counted and have to believe they are doing it for the right reasons.
I am now even more sure I do NOT wish to be any more involved with the European Union than at present - I AM ENGLISH!!!
Yeah I just read that about Germany as well. France seems to be doing the same old stuff though so thats no surprise. darn french!
Germany seems to be trying to win a popularity contest though. The best leaders are not the one that do everything you want. They are the ones that do what is right. In my oppinion anyway!
I wonder how Bush´s "your either with us or with them" speach will play into it. Personally I´d have to say I agree with that. It is not a popular belief these days but there is a black and white right and wrong. Sometimes its hard to figure out where it is though.
I agree the UN SHOULD be the worlds police force. However being an American that is also a little scary. We do love our freedom.
I don´t know much about the EU but the more I hear the weirder it sounds. I´m not sure I´d want to be apart of it.
I´m glad the UK is on board with the US. I´m not sure if the UK is doing it just so they don´t piss us off though. The reports in the US is essentially that the UK public doesn´t agree with.. well most anything the US does.
The news was reporting that the UK was sending 26,000 troops and that it was 25% of the Uks army. I was suprised to hear that. Seems fairly small to me. However its not like the UK as any body to worry about. Not like the scottish are going to rise up
Germany seems to be trying to win a popularity contest though. The best leaders are not the one that do everything you want. They are the ones that do what is right. In my oppinion anyway!
I wonder how Bush´s "your either with us or with them" speach will play into it. Personally I´d have to say I agree with that. It is not a popular belief these days but there is a black and white right and wrong. Sometimes its hard to figure out where it is though.
I agree the UN SHOULD be the worlds police force. However being an American that is also a little scary. We do love our freedom.
I don´t know much about the EU but the more I hear the weirder it sounds. I´m not sure I´d want to be apart of it.
I´m glad the UK is on board with the US. I´m not sure if the UK is doing it just so they don´t piss us off though. The reports in the US is essentially that the UK public doesn´t agree with.. well most anything the US does.
The news was reporting that the UK was sending 26,000 troops and that it was 25% of the Uks army. I was suprised to hear that. Seems fairly small to me. However its not like the UK as any body to worry about. Not like the scottish are going to rise up
You´ll notice that we in the US never see UN forces rolling down the strip. It´ll be a cold day in hell before the US Military allows foreigners in to "meddle". You might say that the US holds a bit of a double standard when it comes to the UN.
Russia can be grouped with Germany and France.
From CNN:
Russia has said it will not back a unilateral military operation against Iraq, according to Russian news agency Interfax. Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Tuesday: "Force must be used only when all other resources have been tapped. The potential for settlement has not been exhausted yet."
I really don´t think you can hold it against a country like Russia that is so vulnerable to a backlash of attacks. Sitting over here across the pond it´s pretty easy to just say, "kill them" We´re in a position where we know they can´t deliver weapons, should they have them, to our shores without using our own sources of transportation, which we control. Funny how the countries with weak military and within firing range want to find another solution besides war... can you blame them?
I´m not a Bush supporter, never have been, but I´m glad someone as intelligent as Powell is around to keep him leashed. I can wait forever for a war to begin... no need to shoot first when we aren´t even sure they´re going to shoot at all.
Russia can be grouped with Germany and France.
From CNN:
Russia has said it will not back a unilateral military operation against Iraq, according to Russian news agency Interfax. Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Tuesday: "Force must be used only when all other resources have been tapped. The potential for settlement has not been exhausted yet."
I really don´t think you can hold it against a country like Russia that is so vulnerable to a backlash of attacks. Sitting over here across the pond it´s pretty easy to just say, "kill them" We´re in a position where we know they can´t deliver weapons, should they have them, to our shores without using our own sources of transportation, which we control. Funny how the countries with weak military and within firing range want to find another solution besides war... can you blame them?
I´m not a Bush supporter, never have been, but I´m glad someone as intelligent as Powell is around to keep him leashed. I can wait forever for a war to begin... no need to shoot first when we aren´t even sure they´re going to shoot at all.
Things are shaky for Russia so I understand their position. I bet they will support it in the end because of chechnya (sp?). They will want more support for them taking care of chechnya if they ever do.
They may not be able to directly launch a major attach on the US. they can cause major damage. All it takes is one Al-quada jerk with a vile of smallpox on an airplane to cause a fairly major worldwide problem. Iraq can strike some of our allais though. Iraq is really not the total goal. it is also to send a message to some of the other middle east countries such as Saudi Arabia who is a major supporter of terror.
I agree that peace and nagotation is the best choice. I think iraq is not one of them. we have been doing it for ten plus years. Keep in mind the majority of his forces did not fight in the golf war. now with the hope that they will get a new demecratic goverment I´d imagine if less iraq solders will want to fight. That is my hope anyway.
This may be a weird example but... how long would you nagotiate with hitler? how many more jews etc would it taken before it was worth helping the UK, French and a host of others.
They may not be able to directly launch a major attach on the US. they can cause major damage. All it takes is one Al-quada jerk with a vile of smallpox on an airplane to cause a fairly major worldwide problem. Iraq can strike some of our allais though. Iraq is really not the total goal. it is also to send a message to some of the other middle east countries such as Saudi Arabia who is a major supporter of terror.
I agree that peace and nagotation is the best choice. I think iraq is not one of them. we have been doing it for ten plus years. Keep in mind the majority of his forces did not fight in the golf war. now with the hope that they will get a new demecratic goverment I´d imagine if less iraq solders will want to fight. That is my hope anyway.
This may be a weird example but... how long would you nagotiate with hitler? how many more jews etc would it taken before it was worth helping the UK, French and a host of others.
I wouldn´t be too sure about the Scots not rising up you know - gets very boring there in the cold weather. We also have to keep a sharp eye on the Welsh and Cornish mob (Prince Charles will keep the latter well under-foot I would think! He´s Duke of Cornwall in case you´re in the least bit interested - that´s where he gets his money!). ;-)
Don´t take the mickey out of our armed? forces though, we´re only little and we do our best!
Don´t believe everything you read in the press, you have huge support in the UK it´s just that the detractors have louder voices and you know what they say about "empty vessels." :-?
Don´t take the mickey out of our armed? forces though, we´re only little and we do our best!
Don´t believe everything you read in the press, you have huge support in the UK it´s just that the detractors have louder voices and you know what they say about "empty vessels." :-?
Haha. I´m actually going to scotland on my Honeymoon this summer.
Where in the Uk do you live? I was on a trip that spent two whole days in london. I had a blast there. Would love to go back. After 10 days in italy and a couple in france it was nice to be able to read the signs!
Glad to hear it. It is the same way in the US.
Where in the Uk do you live? I was on a trip that spent two whole days in london. I had a blast there. Would love to go back. After 10 days in italy and a couple in france it was nice to be able to read the signs!
Glad to hear it. It is the same way in the US.
Joined
·
85 Posts
I can see your points of view. It´s a bit unfortunate that the US decided to use the anti-terrorism card to argue for a clean-up in Iraq. I don´t think there has been any convincing evidence that Iraq is successfully sponsoring terrorism and that has weakened support for the US.
In 1991 (hmm, 12 years ago this week, actually), I interviewed former Cdn Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau on this topic. It was the day the Gulf War started, though we did not realize it yet. He said, essentially, that political leaders should state their reasons up-front. If Iraq needed to be dealt with to protect the western world´s economy from chaos in the middle east, he implied, then say so. If you believe it is morally necessary to confront aggression, say so. If you are acting for both these reasons, say that too.
I believe both arguments, though I remain a bit of a ninny about shooting anyone who isn´t shooting at me first. I don´t know if it would be working better for the US to say that saying that war is necessary in part to protect western economies. But I myself would trust the American government more if they said so.
You have to keep on eye on those Americans; they invaded Canada too once, you know!
- Rob
In 1991 (hmm, 12 years ago this week, actually), I interviewed former Cdn Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau on this topic. It was the day the Gulf War started, though we did not realize it yet. He said, essentially, that political leaders should state their reasons up-front. If Iraq needed to be dealt with to protect the western world´s economy from chaos in the middle east, he implied, then say so. If you believe it is morally necessary to confront aggression, say so. If you are acting for both these reasons, say that too.
I believe both arguments, though I remain a bit of a ninny about shooting anyone who isn´t shooting at me first. I don´t know if it would be working better for the US to say that saying that war is necessary in part to protect western economies. But I myself would trust the American government more if they said so.
You have to keep on eye on those Americans; they invaded Canada too once, you know!
- Rob
Joined
·
85 Posts
... and they did it to "free us from dictatorship" !
hee-hee; just stirring the pot!
- R.
hee-hee; just stirring the pot!
- R.
Joined
·
85 Posts
We´re offended only because it associates us with that rotten beer you drink.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Join the discussion
