Anti-war

[Hmmm]

Why is that people feel they have to be anti-war just because they're students?

Before I get flamed I will explain. There are those who support war and they have their reasons. there are thos who support no war and they have their reasons. All good so far. But then there are those who are basically saying 'war is bad'. No, really? Thats a shock. When you ask them why they think thi all they can come up with is 'war is bad mmmkay'. Very Mr Mackie but never mind.

All I'm saying is that there seem to be some who have what they call student views when in fact they don't really have an opinion on it at all, and have no real knowledge of the politics involved.

And no I'm not pro-war, I just find those students a little strange.

[TheGamesMaster]

You mean like the student who was protesting against eminem. Then when a tv crew asked her why she was protesting, her response was that she hadn't heard his music, knew anything about his music, him or anything to do with him.

Does make you wonder.

[The_Farwall]

I'm just a wishy washy liberal who likes to believe there are better ways to deal with rogue leaders than to kill thousands of the innocent people who have to live under their regiems.
It's true that I don't have any nice complicated plan for an alternative but then I am only 22 and haven't put much thought into it. If I find myself involved in politics for the next twenty years, facing these sort of dilema's once or twice every decade, and still haven't come up with a better thought than "I know, lets kill lots of them!", maybe I'll change my stance.
[hr][s]My weakness is none of your business[/s]

[surfingsimon]

war is appropriate
i have done a lot of thinking on the looming war on iraq and although i can see no real legal justification for it i do think the war is necessary and that we have a right to wage war.

my point is that i have made an informed and rational decision - like the unregistered user who started this i find it really hard to understand people who are going off to demonstrate this weekend in Glasgow without having a clue about the overall situation.

to those who have also thought for themselves and are well informed - good on you, go protest but please don’t just follow the flock of geese.

[Ashley]

Well put, Farwall.

[hr]When two tribes go to war, a point is all that you can score

[Al]

"war is appropriate"

To what?

"i have done a lot of thinking..."

No evidence of that so far!

"i can see no real legal justification for it i do think the war is necessary and that we have a right to wage war."

Or in other words - "I think there should be a war because that's what I think".

"....without having a clue about the overall situation."

There's a situation with overalls? What is it? And what does it have to do with Iraq?

"....but please don’t just follow the flock of geese"

What? "Don't just follow the flock of geese". What? What geese? There's geese now?

[hr]"Oh sing sing sing
For the dying of the day
Sing for the flames that will rip through here
And the smoke that will carry us away"

[Little she-bear]

[s][b]Al wrote on 22:22, 14th Feb 2003
What? "Don't just follow the flock of geese". What? What geese? There's geese now?

Oh, he meant sheep. Geese are very intelligent.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]surfingsimon wrote on 20:28, 14th Feb 2003:
although i can see no real legal justification for it i do think the war is necessary and that we have a right to wage war.


So, you're saying that you think that we should have war but you don't know why you think that..... so in that case how can you criticise people who say we should not have a war but don't know why?

[Guest]

[s]The_Farwall wrote on 19:48, 14th Feb 2003:
It's true that I don't have any nice complicated plan for an alternative but then I am only 22 and haven't put much thought into it.

What on earth has being 22 got to do with it? In politics the only benefit that comes with age is more practise at black arts, not a better ability to run anything; it's not brain surgery you know.

[bnw]

Al, that's the best you could do? Kinda petty of you. A person can do a lot of thinkung without having to write down every single point of their opinion.

And as for the geese comment, you're not really that stupuid are you?

[bnw]

Apolgies for being bitchy, was hungry at the time!

[Saki]

I don't believe that you should be anti-war because you're a student or because you're left-wing or Christian or Muslim. I think you should be anti-war only if, having looked at the evidence and information available to you, you agree that the balance of it makes war with Iraq right now wrong. I'm very firmly against the war, but as much as I want people on the demonstrations I only want people who've genuinely thought through the issues before they committ to coming.

[Oddball]

One should bear in mind that most of Europe's statesmen were opposed to war in the 1938s(obviously not Germany of course). Yet their genuine and admirable desire for peace did not stop the outbreak of war, and may even have made it worse. By being willing to consider going to war, one can in fact make a war less likely. Those way out liberal Peacniks who lurk around this message board should remember risk of the moral courage being mistaken for weakness.

[Al]

There is a world of difference between the evil of Hitler and the problem the world faces in Saddam Hussein. To compare the two is wrong, idiotic and, worse of all, deeply insulting to the memories of the people who died in WW2. Unfortunately this attitude is, or seems to be, prevalent in the upper reaches of the US administration. So much so that they feel they can insult the French by criticising their lack of resolve. They go further and say that it is just like their behaviour in WW1 and WW2. Obviously the US have conveniently forgotten that they joined both wars late and that if anyone wasn't fully engaged in the wars it wasn't France. Perhaps if the US had been invaded then they wouldn't have this obsession with invading other countries.

[hr]"Oh sing sing sing
For the dying of the day
Sing for the flames that will rip through here
And the smoke that will carry us away"

[Oddball]

I did not mean to suggest the situation was identical, but there are similarities. I was certainly not insulting those who gave their lives in the two world wars, but I am willing to criticise those statesmen who thought peace could be gained through appeasement.
The problem of Iraq will not go away on its own. Saddam and his followers will remain a threat to stability in the Middle East, and will continue to pose a threat to global security through the proliferation of WMDs. If left unchecked Iraq will become more of a danger not less. As for the motives of France and Russia one can speculate that they are motivated more by oil money or arms contracts than the US.

As for France's glorious military history, that was sadly ended on the bloody fields of the First World War. By the Second World War the political will may have remained, but the army and air force of France lacked only the will to fight, they had the men and machines. By contrast the US forces knew they were going to win and fought harder.

But to return to my main point if Iraq sees that the UN is unwilling to resort to force it will have no motive for co-operation and disarmnament. The Peace protests will have the unfortunate effect of making Saddam believe he can avoid disarmnament, which may lead to war. If however the Western World presented a united front, Saddam might disarm properly which would avoid a second gulf war.

[The_Farwall]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 20:20, 14th Feb 2003:
What on earth has being 22 got to do with it? In politics the only benefit that comes with age is more practise at black arts, not a better ability to run anything; it's not brain surgery you know.

And you base this opinion on what? I expect by the time I reach a slightly riper age than my current only-just-not-a-teenager I will have experienced a lot more situations and made a lot more mistakes to learn from.
Take President Bush's current cabinet for example, made up of individuals who have been controling Republican governments since time immemorial.
To take a metaphor you dismissed, if world politics where brain surgery, Donald Rumsfeld would have spent to last 20 years treating every patient with a brain tumour by blitzing there brain in a blender and attempting to pour it back into their heads. I'd hope that if that where me, I'd have learnt that that didn't work by now.
[hr]
[s]My weakness is none of your business[/s]

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Oddball wrote on 17:40, 16th Feb 2003:
One should bear in mind that most of Europe's statesmen were opposed to war in the 1938s ... Yet their genuine and admirable desire for peace did not stop the outbreak of war,

So?

Obviously the strength of feeling wasn't as great as it is today, with over 90% of the population opposing the war with no 2nd UN resolution.

We can learn from history, and see that following the mistake of the 1930's in allowing war to take place, millions of people died. Do we want that to happen again, in another world war?

[Oddball]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 14:40, 17th Feb 2003:
[s]Oddball wrote on 17:40, 16th Feb 2003:[i]
One should bear in mind that most of Europe's statesmen were opposed to war in the 1938s ... Yet their genuine and admirable desire for peace did not stop the outbreak of war,

So?

Obviously the strength of feeling wasn't as great as it is today, with over 90% of the population opposing the war with no 2nd UN resolution.

We can learn from history, and see that following the mistake of the 1930's in allowing war to take place, millions of people died. Do we want that to happen again, in another world war?
[/i]

I suspect that most Europeans were opposed to going to war in the 1930s, but that did not stop events happening. As for the 90% figure you quote, I fail to understand how they feel that a second UN mandate really makes any difference. The same bombs are dropped, and the same tanks will still be used. It is pointless for the Peace protestors to hide behind the mask of UN legitimacy, rather than present real arguments.

[Saki]

[s]Oddball wrote on 15:15, 17th Feb 2003:
[ It is pointless for the Peace protestors to hide behind the mask of UN legitimacy, rather than present real arguments.


I'll give you three arguments:

1. Iraq doesn't pose a threat to us. Why would Saddam Hussein use WMD against us when he knows that this would lead to his complete obliteration?

2. Iraq has no links with terrorist groups. Saddam is a secular, socialist dictator who has been consistently opposed to Islamic fundamentalist movements. Bin Laden wants him dead for his heretical views. The terrorist threat is primarily from Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9/11 bombers were from...) and other Middle Eastern countries NOT Iraq.

3. We won't relieve the Iraqi people by attacking them. That isn't the plan. See the article that I posted on the plans for Iraq after invasion - it's basically the same regime minus Saddam Hussein.

[Hmm]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 14:40, 17th Feb 2003:

Obviously the strength of feeling wasn't as great as it is today, with over 90% of the population opposing the war with no 2nd UN resolution.

This statistic is from where?

We can learn from history, and see that following the mistake of the 1930's in allowing war to take place, millions of people died. Do we want that to happen again, in another world war?


Oh dear, and it is was going so well too.