The big red peace bus...

[Little she-bear]

The person trying to give me a leaflet was, I believe, the leader of the Scottish Socialist party in St Andrews (He was the one who introduced Tommy Sheridan at the anti war meeting on monday that i went to, out of interest)and so is unlikely to be persuadable.

Ummm...leader of the SSP in St.Andrews? Just because he chaired a meeting? No he's not the 'leader' of the SSP in St.Ands. he's the secretary. Even if he were, 'the leader', whatever that may be, why would that make him "unlikely to be persuadable?" Why must you imply that socialists are stupid people who don't think about what they do and are unwilling to listen to argument? Did it ever occur to you that anti-war people/members of the SSP are so because they have thought about the issues and come to a reasoned stance? I find you arrogant and offensive.

but then you are a management student, so perhaps that would be expecting too much.

I find you incredibly offensive.

This war will happen regardless of how many loud demos there are, public protest is very overated in its capacity to influence modern governments.

I'm one of these old fashioned people that has moral principles, you know? I think that if you believe that what you are doing is right, then you should do it, regardless of whether you really believe you can win. I'm not going to give up and roll over just becuase it's unlikely that the war can be prevented, it's the principle, moral duty, call it what you like. If everyone thought and behaved like you, nothing would ever change, there would still be slavery in this country and women wouldn't have the vote. It doesn't matter whether you believe you can win, you have to try. That applies to any movement, not just the anti-war movement.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Tony Blair could probably beat an innocent puppy to death on live television and still get elected for at least 2 more terms.

[Cola Cube]

Prophet Tenebrae, Tony Blair's number 1 fan.

[RRankin]

[s]Rennie wrote on 16:26, 28th Feb 2003:
Unregistered User, for a start, i'm guessing you're a medic with that stuck up attitude.


Medicist.

[NicC]

No offence, Rennie, but swearing at people who disagree with you, calling them cowards and saying that there's way more of you than there is of them is hardly the best practice for winning someone onto your side - or even for convincing them that you have an intelligent and thoughtful position on the matter.

As far as I can make out, your own "logical arguments" against war comprise a strident denial that the other side have anything to say that's worth listening to.

I used to be of an anti-war stance. But the smug moral superiority of some of the most vocal anti-war campaigners has kinda put me off, of late. Currently I'm undecided; I don't think I know anywhere near enough to make an informed decision.

What I *do* know is that it's far from a clear-cut issue, whichever side you're arguing for and however right you think you are. Isn't refusing to listen to opposing viewpoints exactly what you're condemning Blair for doing?

[hr]"'Our Mrs Peel in Ladies Underwear'. I rattled up the stairs three at a time..."
--Steed, The Avengers

Soldier in the War on the Brain since October 2002

[Guest]

[s]Little she-bear wrote on 17:25, 28th Feb 2003:
he's the secretary. Even if he were, 'the leader', whatever that may be, why would that make him "unlikely to be persuadable?"

Well, he's the 'secretary' of the SSP here and he hands out anti-war leaflets. So i don't think it would have been too much of a presumption to think so. Anyway, I didn't have the time to spare to try and find out.

Why must you imply that socialists are stupid people who don't think about what they do and are unwilling to listen to argument?[i]

I didn't actually imply that they were stupid.

[i]Did it ever occur to you that anti-war people/members of the SSP are so because they have thought about the issues and come to a reasoned stance?

Yawn, of course it did and does. I just think that their logic is wrong.

I find you arrogant and offensive.

It might be said that my tone was a little sharp. But i draw your attention to Rennie's comments. One way or an other, it does not matter.


I'm one of these old fashioned people that has moral principles, you know? I think that if you believe that what you are doing is right, then you should do it,

Fortunately, Tony blair is too. The war will commense because he believes it to be right.



If everyone thought and behaved like you, nothing would ever change, there would still be slavery in this country and women wouldn't have the vote. It doesn't matter whether you believe you can win, you have to try. That applies to any movement, not just the anti-war movement.


My comments were, as I wrote, about modern governments. As our current adminstration has proved, money is what controls the government. What is it, about £1M, for a government policy these days.

[RRankin]

[s]NicC wrote on 20:01, 28th Feb 2003:
I used to be of an anti-war stance. But the smug moral superiority of some of the most vocal anti-war campaigners has kinda put me off, of late. Currently I'm undecided; I don't think I know anywhere near enough to make an informed decision.


I'm sorry but thats not a very good reason not to have an anti-war stance. I'm personally centre right in my politics, and in some ways feel a little uncomfortable agreeing with some of the anti-war campaigners. Though I can see where you're coming from, certain people are using this issue to gain a public profile or trying to hijack the issue for other political agendas. That annoys me, but I'm disagreeing with the war for reasons I believe in. I won't ever get involed in anti-war marches (because they invariable get hijacked by people with left wing agendas, such as the CND) or big red buses. Don't let smug people put you off expressing your beliefs.

Talking of big buses, that convoy that has gone to iraq make me physically sick. I hope their bus breaks down in the middle of the desert if the war gets going, for their sake, as I doubt Blair or Bush will mourn their loss too much. I think it's pretty disgraceful and nieve behaviour, considering that during the first gulf war Brits, Americans, and others were forced to be human shields, held hostage for up to 18 months not knowing what was going to happen to them. Smug sanctimonious S.O.Bs.

[Ashley]

Very true.

Still, it has raised a lot of publicity for their cause.

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

[NicC]

[s]RRankin wrote on 20:22, 28th Feb 2003:
I'm sorry but thats not a very good reason not to have an anti-war stance. [snip]

I didn't really make myself clear enough. I suppose what I'm saying is that hearing some of what used to be my arguments carried to their conclusion by the smug SOBs made me realise that I don't entirely subscribe to that viewpoint. Partly for the example you quoted: I can't imagine anything more ridiculous than pro-peace people forming human shields to defend the infrastructure that facilitates the Iraqi regime's mass murder.

Whatever my views on Bush, or the principle of war, I can't stomach championing the cause of Saddam Hussein. For all his faults, at least Tony Blair isn't trying to wipe me out simply because I don't share his religion or ethnicity (and before anyone jumps in with the obvious retort, I don't think he's planning to kill Saddam Hussein because of *his* religion, either).

[hr]
"'Our Mrs Peel in Ladies Underwear'. I rattled up the stairs three at a time..."
--Steed, The Avengers

Soldier in the War on the Brain since October 2002

[Rennie]

Unregistered User, your post before the last one, where you reply to what i said about Blair and opinion polls. Can you clarify it at all? Seeing as it made no sense.

Maybe you're not a medic, but in my opinion you're an arrogant twat. And, i'll say it again. Some of you lot here on the Sinner take yourselves and me far too seriously sometimes.

[Little she-bear]

[s]NicC wrote on 20:50, 28th Feb 2003:
[s]RRankin wrote on 20:22, 28th Feb 2003:I didn't really make myself clear enough. I suppose what I'm saying is that hearing some of what used to be my arguments carried to their conclusion by the smug SOBs made me realise that I don't entirely subscribe to that viewpoint.

I still don't think that's a good reason for abandoning a viewpoint. You thought the reasons you had were good before. Why should that change just because you find out that some other people who hold those views also hold some views that you don't agree with? It doesn't affect the argument one bit. It sounds like you're letting your emotions get in the way of your reasoning. Just because you don't like these people, it doesn't mean you have to abandon your former ethical viewpoint.

For example, I'm not Anne Widdecombe's greatest fan by any stretch of imagination but that doesn't mean that I have to stop being anti-bloodsports because she is too. I don't like her politics, by and large, but that doesn't give me a reason to ditch philosophies just because she agrees with them as well. I can quite happily stand shoulder to shoulder with her on this issue but distance myself from her on others. It's not hard to do. Why can't you do the same with the human shield people?

The Stop the War movement isn't monolithic, you can have pluralism within it.

[Guest]

[s]Rennie wrote on 16:08, 1st Mar 2003:
Unregistered User, your post before the last one, where you reply to what i said about Blair and opinion polls. Can you clarify it at all? Seeing as it made no sense.

Tony Blair has relied on opinion polls, to varying degrees, in order to help assess what he can do without suffering politically. He also has, unfortunately, got very good intuition on what the voters will like both now and in the future. My point was that if he thinks he can ignore all the noise of the anti-war mob he presumably thinks that he will not suffer politically as the voters wont be sufficiently bothered by it. His track record thus suggests that the anti-war lot are political impotent.

Maybe you're not a medic, but in my opinion you're an arrogant twat. And, i'll say it again.

Good to see that you are keeping up that sophisticated rebutal of other peoples' opinions. Do they 'teach' you this style of rhetric in you management 'class'?

[Miss Maryland]

Here is an example of an idiot on the anti-war side.

There is a girl in my U.S. government class whose boyfriend is a midshipman at the Naval Academy. She doesn't think that there should be a war because her boyfriend would have to fight in it. Upon asking her why he goes to the Naval academy, she said "for the free education."

I'm sure there are just as many idiots on the pro-war side. Who knows- I may be one of them. Lots of people seem to be arguing these days that people who are serving in the army/navy/marines/etc. shouldn't have to go to war. I would think that these men and women were aware of the possibility of going to war when they enlisted. Is it just me, or is this one of the most ridiculous arguments against war that I have ever heard?

[Guest]

[s]Unregisted User Miss Maryland wrote on 23:17, 1st Mar 2003:
Here is an example of an idiot on the anti-war side.

There is a girl in my U.S. government class whose boyfriend is a midshipman at the Naval Academy. She doesn't think that there should be a war because her boyfriend would have to fight in it. Upon asking her why he goes to the Naval academy, she said "for the free education."

I'm sure there are just as many idiots on the pro-war side. Who knows- I may be one of them. Lots of people seem to be arguing these days that people who are serving in the army/navy/marines/etc. shouldn't have to go to war. I would think that these men and women were aware of the possibility of going to war when they enlisted. Is it just me, or is this one of the most ridiculous arguments against war that I have ever heard?


yes, it is amazing that people who sign up for the military don't expect to go to war. Considering America has had been responsible for more miltary action, than any other country in the world, post world war 2. Think about the last time America wasn't at war or wasn't in a situation that could potentially escalate to war, you can't.

[rhodesia84]

[s]Little she-bear wrote on 17:25, 28th Feb 2003:
Why must you imply that socialists are stupid people who don't think about what they do and are unwilling to listen to argument? Did it ever occur to you that anti-war people/members of the SSP are so because they have thought about the issues and come to a reasoned stance? I find you arrogant and offensive.


Well looking at the track record of Socialism, it seems silly to call socialists reasonable. Naive is probably a better word.

It is sad that in 2003 we still have Socialists, Nazis, and Communists. One would've hoped that we would learn by now that a free society is the best.

[Colin]

[s]Unregisted User rhodesia84 wrote on 17:10, 9th Mar 2003:
It is sad that in 2003 we still have Socialists, Nazis, and Communists. One would've hoped that we would learn by now that a free society is the best.


It is sad that in 2003 we still have people who are in favour of a war to 'save' Iraq from a dictator, and give it democracy, who dont believe in democracy. In a democracy, everyone has the right to their own political opinions, and everyone else should respect that. That is whta a 'free society' is about. Wanting to exterminate those whose viewpoints you disagree with is Facism - as practiced by the leadership of a certain middle eastern country some people don't seem so keen on right now, and by the Nazis. I don't pretend to like Nazis or Facists, but everyone is entitled to their opinion and their right to express it; I will not object if YOU reply.

[Little she-bear]

[s]Unregisted User rhodesia84 wrote on 17:10, 9th Mar 2003:
It is sad that in 2003 we still have Socialists, Nazis, and Communists. One would've hoped that we would learn by now that a free society is the best.


There's lots of different ways to interperate 'freedom,' so it'a little difficult to reply to your post.

I take it as implicit in your statement by a free society you mean an economically libertarian society. Well, I don't think that leads to a free society. I think it leads to a society with a class of disenfranchised people, where the rich can get richer and the poor, poorer. Freedom to succeed entails freedom for fail which makes can make people unfree. This applies just as much between nations as it does between individuals in a single society.