how ironicPosted by BGCPed on 3/13/03 at 06:36 (112717)
How some anti war protesters are so violent and willing to trample on the rights of others. http://www.whittierdailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,207~12026~1239953,00.html#
Re: how ironicSharon W on 3/13/03 at 08:11 (112728)
Sounds like the e-mail campaign against that vandalism was a big success! But I doubt if those cops will ever 'catch' the people who did the vandalism; after all, it would make them look even worse if they admitted in court that they just stood around and watched while the vandalsim was taking place.
Re: isn't it thoughmarie on 3/13/03 at 09:36 (112740)
Yes it is true there are many who trample each other's right to free speech. Some are determined to silence others into submission by their words and deeds. Sorry but I've never been one to jump on the bandwagon to slur the rights of others. There will always be isolated instances that do not reflect well on any group. It is terribly ironic how some groups will beat the drumb on one or two isolated instances to further their own cause. For instance I find it very ironic how so many conservatives went on and on about Bill Clinton's admission of trying pot once in his youth but those same conservatives have embraced our new conservative president who abused a variety of both legal and illegal drugs for a good portion of his adult life. I mean no disrespect to President Bush and am not taking sides with either. People do change. Legal and illegal drug abuse sends a poor message to our youth.
So before I jump on a bandwagon of anti-anti-war views I carefully review the facts about each group and come to my own conclusions about that specific instance. I don't need any help with that. I can certainly look up and find articles on any topic I want......because I believe in a country that honors the right to free speech without threat of bullying. Vandalism is never acceptable it is disrespectful. I don't lump every anti war group together as violent to satisfy my own insecure need for justification of my beliefs. I know alot of conservatives and honestly I don't know a single (accept here) conservative that is advocating an attack on Iraq until every step has been taken to resolve the issue peacefully and diplomatically. Many anti-war protesters don't necessarily have a problem with going to war under certain circumstances....they are having a problem with this particular situation. Many of those protesters are conservative. So I will end with a simple quote 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.
Re: isn't it thoughSharon W on 3/13/03 at 09:46 (112741)
I am not a conservative either, and I dislike hypocricy as much as you do. But I am still disgusted by what happened at that fence.
I am also disgusted by 'pro-life' demonstrators who have engaged in violence and/or vandalism. In my opinion one should never condone behavior that 'crosses the line' in order to favor one's own beliefs, political or otherwise.
Re: isn't it thoughmarie on 3/13/03 at 10:03 (112744)
I agree with you completely.
Re: isn't it thoughEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 11:48 (112753)
There can be 'extremists' on all sides nevertheless I have seen few 'prowar' protestors resort to property destruction or character assassination.
The claim that somehow we are in a 'rush' to war or that the Bush administration somehow needs to exhaust more peaceful and diplomatic solutions is hard to understand. We have been moving forward with diplomatic initiatives for 12 years and, quite frankly, don't know what else can be done in that area. We are dealing with an individual, in Saddam, who has made a mockery of the inspection process and resisted all reasonable attempts at pacification. What, realistically, could be done to make Saddam change his attitude? He has murdered and continues to slaughter his own people and we are not going to change that by throwing flowers at him. We sent U2 spy planes over Iraq to help the inspectors identify sites and Saddam sent up interceptors to threaten them so we stopped. He then stated that that was a mistake. This 'game' has been going on way too long, and, if anything, we may have weakened our position by delaying action.
Re: isn't it thoughmarie on 3/13/03 at 13:38 (112769)
Ed,I do agree that the UN has not stepped up to the plate over the past 12 years to resolve the disarmanent issue in Iraq. However we did not put the the kind of pressure on Iraq and the UN until this past 5 months. We are an advanced society. I happen to think that we can and should use our intelectual wit to resolve the problem. I appreciate the Pope's message to the leaders of the nations involved. I don't think the Inspector's and the UN's request for a few months is unreasonable. Just because we are getting impatient doesn't mean that is a reason to wage a war which will take countless innocent lives. And most importantly has the potential of alienating ourselves from the world community.
I have a question for you. Why didn't we attack the Soviet Union? Now think a minute. They had many violations of human rights (horrific) and of course were a huge threat to democracy in the free world for decades. I think we didn't attack them because they could attack back and do some serious damage, maybe nuclear. Do you honestly think we would threaten to attack Iraq if they really could attack us? The answer is NO. Saddam is surrounded. I don't think he's going to do much of anything for the next few months.
I'd like to correct you on your comment about the U2 spy planes. The inspectors negociated one u2 spy plane. Iraq sent up interceptors because 2 U2 spy planes were not part of the agreement. Iraq didn't know what the other plane was. It was the UN and the inspector's who said they made the mistake and they apologized to Iraq.
Ed have you read Wolfstrom's report on 'World Domination', written about 10 years ago? It's been awhile since I read it but it goes something like this. The U.S. should create the world's most powerful military, using every technological means. A military so powerful that no country would ever be able to attack us. The plan continues with the slow but deliberate attack on the middle east taking over each country and replacing it with a government closer to our liking. It's been years since I read this paper so I admit that this is a short intrepretation. If you find this paper on the internet would you please provide me with a link?
Re: isn't it thoughBGCPed on 3/13/03 at 14:49 (112782)
With all due respect WE DO have the most powerful military and no country 'should be able to attack us. It seems whenever we tried to advance star wars type defense weapons the green gang among others screams no. What 9-11 did was prove that a country may not have success flying planes from their own country or sending missles. but can have great results doing it from within. This is done do to the fact we have weakened borders and tolerated an open door policy with regards to illegals.
In short our own freedoms were used to murder innocent citizens. The argument that we need to give weapons inspectors a chane is old. I really feel it is a code for, I dont think we should attack them at any cost. That open opinion is not very popular so saying give him time for inspections sounds a bit sweeter.
He has had 12 years. As I pointed out before, just based on what he has done is enough. That logic is like saying Charles Manson should be able to appeal his life sentence 1 more time cause he hasnt killed lately. Saddam wont play nice in the world sandbox. Again what he has done is enough, its called justice. He is not a shop lifter or drunk driver.
He is a murderous bastard and belongs in hell. I am glad we are one of the only counties with the guts AND ability to exterminate him. The people of Iraq are never considered by the left, except for the thousands of childeren WE have killed from sanctions.. I listened to a person on the radio last night. He maintained for 1/2 hour and 15 callers that WE are killing thousands of children in Iraq due to sanctions.
That is one of the dumbest most convoluted ideas I have heard yet many on the left keep saying it. Then they toss a bone to the citizens and say we feel bad for them, Saddam is a meanie but give diplomacy a chance. This is like telling a drug dealer a week before you are going to raid his hous and het gets to allow what rooms you can search.
This thread has taken a turn, I just posted that story since the mainstream media has not ran with it. If some guys in a pick up drove up to some college protesters and smashed signs and shoved them that would be all over the networks.
As for my original point. Some on the left butter their bread by preaching peace, acceptance, diversity and non-violence as long as it fits their agenda. I was simply pointing out something
Re: isn't it thoughEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 14:58 (112785)
You are probably right in that we did not go to war with the Soviet Union because we knew it would mean a nuclear holocaust BUT, that is exactly why we have the opportunity to do so now with Saddam, before he obtains more WMD. We had a Cold War that raged on for over 50 years, depleting our national resources and having numerous proxy wars fought all over the world based on that conflict. I do not want to see this happen again and I doubt that you do. We were tired of war after WW2 and while we had the resources to take on the pre-nuclear Soviet Union (Patton wanted us to do so), we did not have the will. In retrospect, Patton was right -- we could have prevented 50+ years of a cold war, 50+ years of the Soviets stoking conflict all over the world, 50+ years of captive nations behind the iron curtain!
Re: isn't it thoughEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 14:59 (112787)
March 11, 2003
A timely primer
The solid reasons for going to war with Iraq and rebuilding that nation as a democracy are cogently and succinctly sketched in Lawrence Kaplan and William Kristol's slim volume 'The War Against Iraq.' The case does not rest upon humanitarian concerns alone, but if it did, it would still be powerful.
The tyranny Saddam has imposed on Iraq has few equals in the world today. International human-rights groups, as well as the United Nations, report that some 16,000 Iraqis have disappeared, never to be accounted for. Saddam's agents are everywhere searching out evidence of disloyalty. The British Index on Censorship, Messrs. Kaplan and Kristol recount, reported a case in which a Ba'ath Party member was present at a gathering where jokes at Saddam's expense were exchanged. The party member and all of the other males in his family were executed and the family home was bulldozed. Another man had his tongue sliced off for 'slandering' the Iraqi leader.
One of Saddam's first acts after coming to power in 1979 was to declare the existence of a 'Zionist spy ring.' Fourteen people, including 11 Iraqi Jews, were strung up before a crowd of thousands in Baghdad, and over the course of the next several months, hundreds of Muslims said to have collaborated in the plot were also executed. Saddam had the 'plotters' executed on live television and their bodies hung from lampposts in the city.
In 1992, Saddam arrested 500 of Baghdad's most successful businessmen on charges of 'profiteering.' Forty-two were executed, their bodies left hanging outside their stores with signs around their necks saying 'Greedy Merchant.' In 1994, the regime issued a new decree announcing that anyone found guilty of stealing an item worth more than $12 would have his hand amputated. For a second offense, the thief would be branded.
Many regimes practice torture on their enemies. But Saddam tortures the children of his enemies before their eyes. Mr. Kristol and Mr. Kaplan quote testimony from a former political prisoner provided by Middle East Watch: 'Each hour, security men opened the door and chose three to five of the prisoners children or men and removed them for torture. Later, their tortured bodies were thrown back into the cell. They were often bleeding and carried obvious signs of whipping and electric shock.'
Twenty-nine of the children mentioned in that particular report were eventually killed. Their bodies were returned to their parents with the eyes gouged out. Saddam often took his own sons to the nation's prisons to have them observe the torture the better to 'toughen them up.'
During the war with Iran (which is predominantly Shi'ite), Iraq's own Shi'ite population came in for especially brutal treatment. Thirty-five thousand Iraqi Shi'ites were driven out of the country at the start of the Iran/Iraq war, and thousands more were tortured and murdered before the war was finished.
Following the Gulf war, Saddam's genocidal fury was even worse. When the Shi'ites in southern Iraq rose in rebellion, Saddam determined to kill as many as he could. An Iraqi army document, obtained by the U.S. State Department, showed that Iraq's military was under orders to 'withhold all foodstuffs, ban the sale of fish, poison the water and burn the villages.' As many as 100,000 Iraqis were murdered by the regime in the months following the Gulf war.
Saddam's treatment of the Kurds was, if possible, worse. The Kurds are a non-Arab minority living in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Armenia. Saddam accused the Kurds, who are Sunni Muslims, of collaborating with the Iranians and gave orders for their extermination. The Iraqi air force used chemical weapons to gas the towns of Halabja, Goktapa and 200 smaller villages, killing as many as 200,000. Mothers were found with their scarves wrapped around their babies' faces, hoping to protect them.
The humanitarian case is not the only one to be made for intervention in Iraq. But it should be kept in mind as America's enemies, both foreign and domestic, seek to put the most sinister possible spin on President Bush's policy. It's a war for oil, or for hegemony, or for empire, they cry. In searching for ways to discredit and undermine the case the war, they are propping up the butcher of Baghdad.
Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Back to Commentary
• Bush Open to Delaying U.N. Iraq War Vote
• Senate OKs 'Partial-Birth' Abortion Ban
• France Rejects British-Proposed Iraq Plan
• Suspects Held After Utah Girl Comes Home
• February Retail Sales Fall 1.6 Percent
Updated at 1:30 p.m.
• UPI Hears...
• Police hold 40 in Serbia assassination
• Gulf War Diary: Blowin' in the wind
• U.S.: Talks could slide past deadline
• Anti-war protesters arrested at sit-in
• Saudis say no Western pressure for change
All site contents copyright © 1999-2003 News World Communications, Inc.
Re: isn't it thoughEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 15:08 (112790)
Your second paragraph in which you call the request for more time for inspectors a 'code' for not attacking at any cost is right on the money.
My challenge is simply 'when and how much' inspection, diplomacy is enough to satisfy those who are making such statements. Sure, as Marie pointed out, the pressure is now on, so Saddam is crushing some obsolescent weapons and putting on a show. He has not destroyed nor revealed any of the significant WMD though and has made no moves to do so. We cannot maintain poised for an attack indefinitely without demoralization of our troops, considerable expense and damage to or economy. That is way too big a price to ask considering the huge sacrifice we are already prepared to make.
Re: isn't it thoughmarie on 3/13/03 at 15:35 (112792)
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and interpretation of the situation at hand. We have not killed thousands in Iraq. Anyone in their right mind understands that it is Saddam and Sadamm alone who is reponsible for the starvation of his people. Iraq is one of the wealthiest countries in the world but little of their resources have benefitted the Iraqi people.
I felt there was a tone to your comment prior to the posting of the story. This is the tone that has continued to occur over and over again on this board. This the tone that seems to have discouraged many posters from continuing with this board. The story about the protesters is not so obscure. I read about it in our small town newspaper. I would never condone the way those young people acted. Sharon was absolutely correct. As I said above you are entitled to your interpretation, but it is just that. I don't recall ever mentioning dropping flowers on Iraq, it's that type of comment that is inappropriate. So is it ok with you if I post anti-war articles on the board every day?
Re: isn't it thoughBGCPed on 3/13/03 at 16:52 (112806)
Of course it is Marie. I would never ever try to stifle or silence a persons opinion. I was not directing my comments towards you. Sometimes when I use the term the left I mean media, entertainers etc. I read and listen to all views and then form my opinions. The point about the radio show last night was that I have heard the children in Iraq argument many times and it is ridiculous. I heard Mike Farrel the guy from MASH on the radio defending another entertainer that compared Bush admin to Hitler and Nazis. It was not a flippant remark either.
The guy interviewing Farrel kept asking him about it and each time he would go a little further until he was basically and implicitly supporting those asinine comments. He started out saying the guy never said it. Then when he heard a tape he said I dont think thats what he really meant. This stuff can be debated all day.
I think Dr Ed was on the mark. If the UN, they never will but if the UN would agree if Bush said all the weapons out in the open and Saddam go into exile in say Egypt within 30 days or the bombing starts, what would the anti war say? They dont want it for any reason. Nobody wants it but you dont give a muderous evil criminal an option. Police dont keep calling a rapists house and say, hey we are serious you better come down to the station. They dont give 12 years of options to make a mockery of the resolutions.
I also find it strange and toothless of the UN to let France sign a resolution, several in fact and then not want to enforce what they agreed to. Furthermore they then claim that the US is operating outside of the UN and not following the rules.
Re: isn't it thoughmarie on 3/13/03 at 17:18 (112812)
Thanks for clearing that up. There are some who compare Bush to Hitler just as there are those who compare our stance on Iraq alone to the time right before WWII. It is all opinion and conjecture.
They just anounced a new developmnet....Powell saids we will continue to keep the situation fluid. I think restraint is in order. I agree with the new direction of our President.
Re: isn't it thoughBGCPed on 3/13/03 at 17:22 (112813)
WELCOME TO THE DARK SIDE MARIE
Re: isn't it thoughmarie on 3/13/03 at 17:31 (112815)
I don't think so. But I do like cheese.
Re: important distinctionsEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 21:10 (112880)
Those who compare Bush to Hitler are impugning the character of an individual.
Those comparing the pre-WW2 era to now are drawing historical analogies, not engaging in character assasination. The analogies are based on the question of whether appeasement of a tyrant is an effective policy or not.
Re: important distinctionsmarie on 3/13/03 at 21:20 (112888)
I don't agree with either of those analogies. I think we learn from our past but we have to stay focused on the current event at hand. Insults never win me over. Insults are just what they are insults and they don't further anyones cause.
Re: important distinctions, the importance of history lessonsEd Davis, DPM on 3/13/03 at 21:28 (112894)
History is all about forming analogies. I have always felt that students who do not like the subject of history, take that opinion because they don't understand the importance of the subject, they may view the subject as the memorizing of a bunch of dates or learning about some 'dead people.'
The importance of the subject is to draw analogies and contrasts between historical and current situations such that guidance exists. That is a far call from name calling which happens when one simply levies insults b comparing our current leader to an unsavory character in history.
There is not a great deal to be learned on the basis of comparison of individuals although the study of the motivation and character of individuals is important. Comparing and contrasting circumstances and situations is important and is the basis of military history, via the study of prior battles and political history.
Re: important distinctions, the importance of history lessonsjohn h on 3/14/03 at 09:23 (112930)
I think I must have been in my mid thirties before I came to realize the relevance of history. If you do not have some understanding of history you really do not understand why nations act the way they do and are likely to act in the future. Each of us are the way we are because of our history both on a family level and as a nation. Trying to conduct foreign policy with no knowledge of the history of the nation you are dealing with is like walking blind folded. Certainly the Mideast is a clear example. Once one of the dynamic areas of the world it is now a nation rulded by dictators, clerics, and Kings. One is absolutely required to understand the teachings of Mohammed if you are to deal with countries in this area. In the order of things history is as important as mathmatics and the sciences.Our system of law in this country is built on case 'history'. In medicine we start by taking a patients case 'history' and treatment is predicated on the history of past success and failures. History is all around us and effects us daily in ways we do not even think about. My personal training in life is largely in technology and the sciences but I consider history as important.
Re: important distinctions, the importance of history lessonsmarie on 3/14/03 at 12:15 (112966)
Oh of course. You may have misunderstood me. History is important but not all situations are identical, therefore it is conjecture to say they are the same. It's not about who is right or wrong just opinions. That includes individuals as well. I don't thin k President Bush is like Hitler.
Re: important distinctions, the importance of history lessonsmarie on 3/14/03 at 12:19 (112967)
John, I agree with you completely. We learn from History. That's why I posted the site for Hiroshima Peace Museum. It's not about right or wrong nor is it my conjecture it simply is. Thanks for your thoughtful insight.