"Peace" Protesters

[Whykickamoocow]

I dunno what these retards do in other countries but here the protesters are actually not being very peaceful at all. You look at pictures of the wars in israel and all them then look at the protesters. The only difference is the buildings in the background are bigger. They're getting arrested for assulting police and other people, even pulling knives on them? What the fuck? "Make love not war, but if u don't protest with us we'll rip your gut open"????
Do these protesters have brains in the 1st place? What are they going to do? I live in a very small city in Australia (less then 50000 people in the city). And we've even got them here too. What do they expect to do? They get on the local news...and thats about it, knowbody cares. Do they think by doing this Saddams just gunna apologise and be a good little boy from now on? What do they really expect to happen by protesting?

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/27/03 01:28 AM, Whykickamoocow wrote: I dunno what these retards do in other countries but here the protesters are actually not being very peaceful at all.

peace protestor doesn't mean peaceful protesting. It's the first step to make it known to all authority that you and millions of others are against this illegal war, and the next step is called dissedants, and the next step is called activism, and the next step is called terrorism, and the last step is called terror organization!

War is the American Government way of getting all ppl on this earth to raise their hands and say "we hate America's attitude" then force them into a "Dead-ended" situation...

(have i made this 'witch-hunt' crystal clear to you now??)

[Whykickamoocow]

By peace protestor i mean they are protesting for peace. Then they go and to the total opposite of what they are protesting for. The irony is my point.

[mattymetro]

well all of those hippy a55 people... instead of wasting their time protesting they should be taking steps to make their communities better... and doing things that they HAVE control over.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

But think of all the hard work that they would have to put into the effort! No, it's much easier to protest and take drugs (/sarcasm)

[daRiCa]

At 3/27/03 02:24 AM, mattymetro wrote: well all of those hippy a55 people... instead of wasting their time protesting they should be taking steps to make their communities better... and doing things that they HAVE control over.

a lot of ppl protesting don't know much about the war, they just think it's a fun thing to do since they know "war is bad" (but thats about it). i previously started a topic about if protests actually have any influence on the war, but i think bush is too deep in it now to listen to any protest, no matter how violent it gets.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/27/03 02:23 AM, Whykickamoocow wrote: By peace protestor i mean they are protesting for peace. Then they go and to the total opposite of what they are protesting for. The irony is my point.

Aye, well America is fighting a war in the name of peace - a kind of pre-emptive war to end all future wars ..hang on, where have we heard that before - irony indeed!

..and those "lazy stoned hippies" can at least see beyond the fog of war, and read between the lines, and decypher the rhetoric comming from the delusional pollys running massive (expensive) and deadly military might - against weapons of reasonable defense.

[Jiperly]

people who cause damage during any protest embrassass the people who are there for their beliefs- the peace protest isn't alone. as for worldwide, its my understanding that the 1.5 million people in london did cause a great deal of vandalism!

[fourdaddy]

..and those "lazy stoned hippies" can at least see beyond the fog of war, and read between the lines, and decypher the rhetoric comming from the delusional pollys running massive (expensive) and deadly military might - against weapons of reasonable defense.

reasonable defense? so chemical/biological weapons are a reasonable defense? what do they need defense from anyway? if they werent such a backward nation, they would realize that we would protect them if they needed it, then they wouldnt need any weapons at all.

and about the whole protestor thing.....
america is fighting a war to end a tyrrany, and to eventually get back to peace. a protestor may argue that they are protesting violently to help the peace return, but, isnt that hypocritical? the protestors whole objective is to stop something that is at heart the same as what they are doing.

i have no respect for demonstrators. dont they have something better to do?

[Jiperly]

At 3/27/03 09:38 AM, fourdaddy wrote:

reasonable defense? so chemical/biological weapons are a reasonable defense? what do they need defense from anyway? if they werent such a backward nation, they would realize that we would protect them if they needed it, then they wouldnt need any weapons at all.

uhhh.....we didn't defend Iraq from Iran, did you? there are thousands of wars America doesn't get involved in, and Americas current frowning on dictator isn't helping very much....

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/27/03 09:38 AM, fourdaddy wrote:
reasonable defense? so chemical/biological weapons are a reasonable defense? what do they need defense from anyway?

Iraq may not even use (or have) any such weapons for defensive reasons, so don't twist my wording.

OK. Why does America have chemical and biological and nuclear weapons? Why does Russia? Why do many countries keep these illegal weapons that they don't intend to ever use - surely it's defensive.

Why should America be trusted to protect every nation? Actually recent US history on helping or attacking countries is mostly based on self-interest - HENSE THE CURRENT PROTESTING!

I just heard an Indonesian youth point out the obvious - that Saddam is a secular Muslim, NOT an Islamic radical. And by his words; "What America is saying is laughable, ..to think that Saddam would make a nuclear bomb and give it to Islamic Extremists, who would just as likely use it back on Saddam" - for having had wars against his Islamic neighbour - Iran.

Sad to realize that under any other US President, Saddam would probably be seen as the old co-conspirator against Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East - just as he was in the 1980's
_

[Slizor]

I would like to point out in London there was two million people marching and about 20 got arrested. In fact, the number arrested that day was less than an average London day.

reasonable defense? so chemical/biological weapons are a reasonable defense? what do they need defense from anyway? if they werent such a backward nation, they would realize that we would protect them if they needed it, then they wouldnt need any weapons at all.

Hah, get the most aggressive nation in the world to protect you....yeah right.

and about the whole protestor thing.....
america is fighting a war to end a tyrrany, and to eventually get back to peace.

Bullshit.

[Jiperly]

Why should America be trusted to protect every nation? Actually recent US history on helping or attacking countries is mostly based on self-interest - HENSE THE CURRENT PROTESTING!

heres some proof of the above statement:
in 1953, United States overthrows the Prime Minister of Iran, installs a Dictator, in 1954 The United States overthrows the democraticly elected president of Guatemala, killing 200,000 civilians in the process. In 1963, the US supports the assassination of South Veitnam's President, and from that point on till 1975, 4 million people are killed by American soldiers in Asia, or 2/3 the estimated number of Jews killed by Nazism during WWII. In September 11th, 1973, The United States stages coup in chile, and assassinated their democraticly elected president- and replaced him by a dictator. 5,000 chileans were murdered. In 1977, America supports the militart rulers of El Salvador, leading to the deaths of 70,000 Salvadorans and 4 american nuns.. In 1980, Osama Bin Laden and fellow terrorists were trained to kill soveits, and the CIA gives them 3 BILLION!
In 1981, the Reagan Admin. trains and funds the 'contras', 30,000 Nicaraguans die. In 1982, the US gives billions in aid to Iraqi to create weapons to kill Iranians in their war, and in 1983, the US secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait with weapons they recieved from America. In 1991, America invades Iraq and reinstates the dictator of Kuwait. Since then, Iraq has been bombed weekly till present day, and the UN estimates that 500,000 Iraqi civilians die from sanctions and bombs. in 2000-2001, the Taliban received 245 million in aid, and in Sept. 11th, 2001 Osama Bin Laden, with his CIA training, killed 3000 people

[NSS-SEPP]

"peace" protesters bringing out some "good" arguments

[ZamiC]

Well, I think that when i protest something.. in.. uuh.. in the "bad way" my meaning is that the people in goverment should do something. Something like more radical. ..i dunno.
Protesting hard is the only way of people to inform that they have something to say. And as we know, protesting things isn't wery unusual thing in democracy countrys. is it?
What else man from the streets could do?? Send letter or WHAT?? nothing....

So what i say is: Protest people! Protest!

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/27/03 12:06 PM, Jiperly wrote:

Why should America be trusted to protect every nation? Actually recent US history on helping or attacking countries is mostly based on self-interest - HENSE THE CURRENT PROTESTING!

heres some proof of the above statement:
in 1953, United States overthrows the Prime Minister of Iran, installs a Dictator, in 1954 The United States overthrows the democraticly elected president of Guatemala, killing 200,000 civilians in the process. In 1963, the US supports the assassination of South Veitnam's President, and from that point on till 1975, 4 million people are killed by American soldiers in Asia, or 2/3 the estimated number of Jews killed by Nazism during WWII. In September 11th, 1973, The United States stages coup in chile, and assassinated their democraticly elected president- and replaced him by a dictator. 5,000 chileans were murdered. In 1977, America supports the militart rulers of El Salvador, leading to the deaths of 70,000 Salvadorans and 4 american nuns.. In 1980, Osama Bin Laden and fellow terrorists were trained to kill soveits, and the CIA gives them 3 BILLION!
In 1981, the Reagan Admin. trains and funds the 'contras', 30,000 Nicaraguans die. In 1982, the US gives billions in aid to Iraqi to create weapons to kill Iranians in their war, and in 1983, the US secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait with weapons they recieved from America. In 1991, America invades Iraq and reinstates the dictator of Kuwait. Since then, Iraq has been bombed weekly till present day, and the UN estimates that 500,000 Iraqi civilians die from sanctions and bombs. in 2000-2001, the Taliban received 245 million in aid, and in Sept. 11th, 2001 Osama Bin Laden, with his CIA training, killed 3000 people

What is your source? You act as if the US has deliberately murdered millions of innocent people. Some of these statements are true, but I want to see proof of your statements. There are also some flaws in your account. We never invaded Iraq in 1991. We simply drove them out of Kuwait. And you mention reinstating Kuwait's "dictator", as if we were the aggressor, not Iraq.

I honestly wonder what the hell they're teaching in history classes in other countries these days. I can respect those who give rational and logical reasons for opposing war, but there seem to be some people who are just blatantly anti-American, trying to paint us as an evil, aggressive nation at every opportunity. What did we ever do to you?

[JMHX]

At 3/27/03 09:27 AM, Jiperly wrote: people who cause damage during any protest embrassass the people who are there for their beliefs- the peace protest isn't alone. as for worldwide, its my understanding that the 1.5 million people in london did cause a great deal of vandalism!

Peace protesters are people I try and space myself from in terms of anti-war. They're too...violent, and the majority that I've seen have blindingly uninformed arguments. I try and run with a better crowd. This one. Erm..

[Commander-K25]

At 3/27/03 12:06 PM, Jiperly wrote:
heres some proof of the above statement....

Been reading some Chomsky have we? Don't you know that's unhealthy?

[Jiperly]

no, i haven't read Chomsky......but whats with the hatred toward him? the only thing i can think is wrong is he claims that American Media trys to control the populance through protraying certain objects more than other objects(ie more violence in the Ghetto than people volenteering for the homeless) and that he defended a (crazy) mans right to freedom of speech.....

[NJDeadzone]

::yawn:: these protestors are just losers that are following a fad.

The Anti-War movement is valid, but hardly should be represented by sponges that soak up the attention from media.

[NJDeadzone]

At 3/28/03 12:21 AM, Newgrundling wrote:

"Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

even though it's friday, that's the quote of the day for yesterday

[TheShrike]

At 3/28/03 12:21 AM, Newgrundling wrote: "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

LOL

I don't agree with you, but that was truly funny.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/27/03 12:47 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: We never invaded Iraq in 1991. We simply drove them out of Kuwait.

Since then, Iraq has been bombed weekly till present day - hitting targets in Iraq territory - the "No Fly Zones"

And you mention reinstating Kuwait's "dictator", as if we were the aggressor, not Iraq.

..word is that Saddam phoned to the then President George Bush Senior first, to get the ok for the attack on Kuwait.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/28/03 01:15 AM, Judge_DREDD wrote:

At 3/27/03 12:47 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: We never invaded Iraq in 1991. We simply drove them out of Kuwait.

Since then, Iraq has been bombed weekly till present day - hitting targets in Iraq territory - the "No Fly Zones"

Ah, the No Fly Zones. Those were set up for a reason (part of the cease-fire agreement, I believe). I don't think hitting targets in the No Fly Zones counts as a full-on invasion. Hey, when they fired on our planes that were patrolling the zones, of course we were going to take out the people that were firing on us.

And you mention reinstating Kuwait's "dictator", as if we were the aggressor, not Iraq.

..word is that Saddam phoned to the then President George Bush Senior first, to get the ok for the attack on Kuwait.

Source please.

[JudgeDredd]

I don't think hitting targets in the No Fly Zones counts as a full-on invasion. Hey, when they fired on our planes that were patrolling the zones, of course we were going to take out the people that were firing on us.

they also "took out" any building eminating a radar signal - which is kinda hard to verify it's was legit target after you've "neutralized" the source signal.

hmm ..look how close to the capital city! :|

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/27/03 06:28 AM, UNpossible wrote: But think of all the hard work that they would have to put into the effort! No, it's much easier to protest and take drugs (/sarcasm)

I truly hope you're joking.

It's sad to see such generalizations being made.

Easier to protest and take drugs.

Just following a fad.

I'm truly against this, and for reasons that I've stated. I have well informed opinions, and while I will not disrespect anyone elses opinions, they're not going to change mine. But for someone to lump me into 'following a fad' or the 'dirty hippy' remarks...I don't think you realize just what you're saying.

If that's what you want to believe, I can't stop you. But just remember that I, an anti-THIS-war protestor, a PEACEFUL, DRUG-FREE, EDUCATED American, has never once lumped any of you into some generalization or stereotype.

[Taxman2A]

At 3/28/03 01:15 AM, Judge_DREDD wrote:

..word is that Saddam phoned to the then President George Bush Senior first, to get the ok for the attack on Kuwait.

Oh, that's the word is it? Jeezus, you're arguments are terrible.

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/28/03 02:12 AM, Taxman2A wrote:

At 3/28/03 01:15 AM, Judge_DREDD wrote:

..word is that Saddam phoned to the then President George Bush Senior first, to get the ok for the attack on Kuwait.

Oh, that's the word is it? Jeezus, you're arguments are terrible.

..sometime you gotta drop out of the serious debate and have a laff : )

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

>truly hope you're joking.

It's sad to see such generalizations being made.

Easier to protest and take drugs.

Just following a fad.

I'm truly against this, and for reasons that I've stated. I have well informed opinions, and while I will not disrespect anyone elses opinions, they're not going to change mine. But for someone to lump me into 'following a fad' or the 'dirty hippy' remarks...I don't think you realize just what you're saying.

If that's what you want to believe, I can't stop you. But just remember that I, an anti-THIS-war protestor, a PEACEFUL, DRUG-FREE, EDUCATED American, has never once lumped any of you into some generalization or stereotype.<

Lump you into what? I never asked you to read my comments, and if you disagree with them, you would have done a lot better than to bash my comments nearly twenty four hours AFTER I made them. If you say that you have never lumped my type into some generalization, that does not mean that someone else hasn't. I never specifically lumped you into the same category as described by me, but if you wish to interpret my words in that way, be my guest. If you want a flame war as well, I am also open to that opinion.

To Judge_DREDD: Good one. We all need a good laff.
Here's a cookie

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/28/03 03:47 AM, UNpossible wrote: Lump you into what? I never asked you to read my comments,

Oh, but you did. By posting them in a public forum, logic says you want people to read them.

and if you disagree with them, you would have done a lot better than to bash my comments nearly twenty four hours AFTER I made them.

And I can use the same argument. You could have done a lot better than bash me for -not being online- early enough to answer in the time frame you wanted.

If you say that you have never lumped my type into some generalization, that does not mean that someone else hasn't.

So, you get back at the big, bad stereotypers by doing the exact same thing? Good logic there, too.

I never specifically lumped you into the same category as described by me, but if you wish to interpret my words in that way, be my guest.

I will, thanks. But it's not just you. It's everyone who says, 'Those damned anti-war shysters are all the same,' or 'Those stupid pro-war idiots are all the same!' NONE of it makes sense.

You can take that any way you like, but I meant it as a small mention of how so many people claim to be openminded and fair, yet when it comes right down to it, they're just as predjudiced against people with different ideas as the next guy. It's all about respect. This isn't a personal attack. Don't get so defensive.

If you want a flame war as well, I am also open to that opinion.

Who said I wanted a flame war? That was exactly what I was arguing -against-. Sheesh!