posted February 19, 2003 01:53 AM              

No, I’m not advocating a direct democracy. I’m simply saying - don’t think that just because our government is backing yours that that is what the Australian people want.

Once again using statistics… statistics are made up.

I don’t see anyone here trying to tell anyone what to do. I see a lot of people with love and peace in their hearts try8ing to share it with others and that is beautiful.

Like you said ‘those people’ are ONLY a small-unelected percentage of the general population (your words). How are they supposed to formulate ANY alternative when A) their opinions would never get herd or taken seriously and B) People like you are so quick to shut them down and tell them that what they believe is nonsense or just a bunch of tree huggin’ hippie crap.

They have something the large un-elected or elected percentage of the general population doesn’t, a want for world peace and love. Compassion. No more bloodshed. No more terror. They want the world to be a better place for all of us to live in and they realise war is not the way this is ever going to happen. A war will not hinder the producers of weapons of mass destruction. It may slow them down but wont stop them. Terrorists and extremists are like herpes, they just keep comin back.

Now I think I’ve got the answer but I wont post it here because this post is already long enough.
Rest assured it will be posted soon.

posted February 19, 2003 03:19 AM              

Is the Aquarian Age going to be ruled by wars/nuclear missiles/tyrants/arrogant governments? Or is it going to be ruled by love, peace, understanding and compassion for man/womankind? How do we achieve this ideal and dream?

Peace protests have their place and are a powerful statement of what the people of the nations want. Violence is not the answer and neither is losing the lives of the innocents!

Love and Peace,
Sunmeadow Glades.

posted February 19, 2003 11:38 AM            

In spite of your insistence that I'm wrong, a war monger, blah, blah, blah, along with about 75% of Americans who support the President, blah, blah, blah, I am right about you.

Thanks for posting the link to an admittedly communist paper and attempting to use their shrill putdowns of the President and his Administration to bolster your position. http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/2925/1/138/

The People’s Weekly World is the newspaper of the Communist Party, USA. You should have posted this link so everyone could see where you're coming from.
http://www.pww.org/article/static/320/

You and your merry little band of Communists need to face facts Harpyr. Communism is an idea whose time never deserved to come, it's a discredited system that deserves no space in the arena of ideas about government. It's a system that attracts the weak minded, the insecure, the unmotivated and those with a slave mentality who would trade their freedom for a government who would control every facet of their lives. Communist governments have also killed about 200 million of their own citizens and the slaughter continues, in North Korea, China, North Viet Nam and Cuba. You ever think about immigrating Harpyr?

Communism cannot compete with free market Capitalism, the incentive motive is paramount in supplying needed goods and services to run any economy. Communism produces a nation of slaves dependent on Capitalism to feed them, lest they starve to death. Now, it's an idea on the scrap-heap of history---along with the Soviet Union and soon, North Korea.

"Workers unite and throw off the yokes of your Capitalist oppressors" No thanks Harpyr. You've called into question not only your intellectual capacity but your sanity as well.

The so called "peace movement" is a phony, organized and dominated by the communists to win power they can't win at the ballot box. Ditto the environmental, animal rights and World Court movements.

jwhop

posted February 19, 2003 01:06 PM            

Why go to all that trouble. Ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel is explosive but it's no match for a nuke.

Proxieme

posted February 19, 2003 03:20 PM            

Just be sure when you set the trigger on your nuke that you tie that rubber band retainer veeeeery tight.

And now, just in case those are the actual instructions in the terrorist nuke manual and this site is being monitored; Hey guys, don't shoot, I'm a friend.

Hmmm, didn't you know? The Internet is being scanned for key words, nuke and bomb being high on the Fed's list

If I were you NW, I'd split. The security forces are probably on the way to your pad.

posted February 19, 2003 03:50 PM              

I don't have knowledge of any threat done by Saddam... but if he did, could anyone tell me when ?

When you speak " your country " you are right. Terrorism is practiced anywhere in the world for many, many years. More recently we saw what happened in Bali... and once again, as far as I know, it was not possible to establish any connection with Iraq or with Saddam...
Or not ?

Therefore, this war "denominated" against terror, should have as target those who practice it, and this target should be AL- QAEDA !!!!!
Or not ?

Saddam is a murderous and sanguinary dictator, but he doesn't represent any danger out of the walls of his country... if he is not provoked...

Osama Bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein, to who he refers as an infidel, because for him the whole area of the Middle East should be an indivisible and sacred Islamic state. Bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist while Saddam belongs to origin Sunnite and was always in war with the Islamic ones...

Once again, and I swear that it will be the last, I ask: Which is the connection between war on terror, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden ?

My position in being against this war is not crystallized, but I need that somebody give me a base to change it... and jwhop , this doesn't have to do with being communist, socialist, anarchist, or any other thing, this has to do with wanting answers and not find them in any place...

posted February 19, 2003 05:18 PM              

So,
NAPALM.
TERRORIST. TERRORIST. TERRORIST.
BOMB. BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB. BOMB.
NUKE. NUKENUKENUKENUKENUKE. NUKE. NUKE-ITY NUKE NUKE NUKE. NUCULAR.

And, last but certainly not least...
*drums and fanfare*

THE ANARCHIST'S COOKBOOK !!!

posted February 19, 2003 05:40 PM            

I get news from many sources, especially independant media sources because corporate media in America is really into self-censorship, as is written about here- http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030218/7/3ap62.html

As you stated in the Leo Moon thread, yes I am a collectivist, but again, not necessarily a communist, if anything I lean abit more towards socialism. As I've stated before I don't think any existing system is without flaws that need working out. But don't get me wrong, I'm all for freedom but this intense focus on individuality (which is good to a degree) that capitalism has brought has also caused us to lose sight of the fact that community is equally important.
Especially in light of reports by scientists that say we have only one or two generations left to change our messy, reckless ways before the damage done to the earth is irreparible- http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,871063,00.html

To get to the nitty gritty of it, an object or entity cannot be defined without defining it's enviroment as well. We are reflections of our surroundings.
As above, so below
What we do to the natural world is a reflection of what we do to ourselves. So you see us raping and pillaging the earth and then you see our society filled with people destroying eachother and inturn, destroying themselves. There's no simple answer but I do know that continuing the cycle of war and exploitation is not it.

Yes, Saddam is a despicable despot that should be addressed but don't kid yourself into thinking that is the reasoning inside the heads of people like bush and Rumsfield, their motivations are not so noble, I guarantee you.

As for alternatives, what if we were to FLOOD Iraq with weapons inspectors and while we are at it, since we have this gun to Saddam's head right now, lets flood Iraq with human rights inspectors too. Make him free all political prisoners and force him to allow an opposition party to open up shop inside Iraq. Here's another essay on this topic- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,898480,00.html

posted February 19, 2003 05:54 PM            

Of course this is about the communists who are behind the anti war movement. The movement is dominated, directed and controlled by communist organizations. The whole antiwar movement is nothing more than an attempt to give the Bush Administration a black eye. They weren't marching and putting out their BS propaganda when Clinton was bombing Iraq in 99 or bombing Yugoslavia for 78 straight days in 99 either. Not a word was heard.

Selective pacifism? If so, and it is so, then it's phony.

So, you say Milosevic "practiced a sea of blood" and military intervention was justified? Don't look now but Saddam Hussein has killed more Iraqis than Milosevic killed
in all his years. Saddam also attacked two of his neighbors and used chemical weapons on Iranian troops, also his own people.

Milosevic was in no way a threat to the United States, yet you say we were justified to remove him.

You say Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States and military intervention is NOT justified to remove him.

Using your reasoning, why not. Both are butchers, neither represent a threat to the US, so why is military intervention justified in one case and not the other?

If military intervention was justified against Milosevic why isn't it justified against Hussein?

I disagree, Saddam has weapons easily transported, easily distributed to terrorists who could and would love to attack the US and their allies. There is no disagreement between Saddam and Bin Laden, they both hate the US.

What leads you to believe Al-Qaida isn't being dealt with? They're being monitored, tracked and hunted. I doubt any of them who close their eyes for a moment feel any assurance they will ever open them again, except those already in custody.

jwhop

posted February 19, 2003 06:53 PM            

"jwhop, you're a "freeper", aren't you?"

I had to do a search for "Freeper to find out what you were talking about. First on the list was Free Republic, is that what you meant. If so, then the answer is no. I've seen some of their pages through links but this is the first time I ever went directly to their site.

I'm a conservative Libertarian Alena, who generally votes Republican because the Democrats make me want to throw up and the Libertarians have such a loose collection of ideas, including the legalization of drugs that they have no chance of being elected.

posted February 19, 2003 07:33 PM              

There was a blurb on the CBS Evening News tonight about the initial 2-day bombing campaign that is to take place in the conflict with Iraq. It is to be intensive and focused on hitting strategic human targets, mostly in or around densely populated Baghdad.
It is conservatively estimated by military sources that 15%-20% of those guided missiles and bombs will have catastrophic guidance failure - that is, an estimated 400 will go off course.
OK. So, besides those bystanders that will die with the impact and explosion of those that stay their course, 400 will hit city streets and buildings. Let's say on the low-end that an average of 2 people are killed with each that goes off course. That's 800.
Maybe an average of 5 will be killed with each - this is, after all, a city. That's 2,000.
That's 800-2,000 people. Dead. Because our technology failed as it was falling.
That's not 800-2,000 cases of collateral damage. They're not casualties.
Those are people.
They're Moms. They're kids. They're merchants with no part in this damned war.
Those are people that are breathing right now, and we have the arrogance to think that our inability to find a better solution warrants their deaths.
I'm not arguing for the just or unjustness of this war, I'm not pointing to past precedent. Nor am I accusing the US of being an arrogant bully, apart from the rest of humanity.
I heard that figure, and it hit me all at once: there is no longer such a thing as a just war, not with the resources now at our collective disposal. Not when we can kill 2,000 people by accident in an initial show of force. As a species - not as a country, not split into classes, but as whole - we're arrogant to think that any end justifies such means.

I don't care what Saddam is doing or has done, we've got to find another way. If we go on with this the Iraqi people shall justly despise us. Humanity should despise itself for the fact that this is seen as a viable solution - that further carnage can be seen as stop-gap to death and oppression that has come before.

posted February 19, 2003 07:39 PM            

quote:

---

Saddam also attacked two of his neighbors and used chemical weapons on Iranian troops

---

So why isn't flooding Iraq with weapons inspectors and human rights inspectors an option we should try first, jwhop?
War shold be the absolute LAST option and all our options have definetly not been expended yet.

Even if the communist party is behind the peace movement, it wouldn't have caught on with so many people from so many diverse backgrounds if there weren't legitimate concerns and valid arguments to back it up.
Even stormin' Norman Schwarzkopt has gone on record saying that the administration hasn't made a strong enough case for war yet.
MANY PATRIOTIC veterans of war are calling for more solid evidence of this 'threat' Saddam poses to the US.
The reason that the peace movement is reemerging now as oppossed to four years ago against Clinton's actions (not that I'm defending those) is because bush is trying to do something unprecedented, a pre-emptive strike, which is really just a different way of saying , wage a war of aggression.
We sentenced Nazis to death for waging a war of aggression.

quote:

---

There is no disagreement between Saddam and Bin Laden, they both hate the US

---

Yyeaah..That's why bin Laden recently lumped Hussein into the same group of 'infidels' that he classifies the US as. The Bush administration is tryin to make it sound like he supports hussein but the wording indicates moreso that bin Laden is trying to garner support from the Iraqi people, not hussein himself, to whom he has issued several death threats.

'freeper', huh? Here's the interesing thing, the left and the right have more in common than they might realize. Here's the first paragraph from freerepublic.com-

quote:

---

Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

---

posted February 20, 2003 01:07 AM              

I would suggest to EVERYONE to lay off the stats... if you need stats to make your argument sound legit, then your argument is silly.

There are always civilian casualities in wars and actually 2K is very few.

I bet the millions of people held hostage in a country where there is no freedom, where the masses are ruthlessly governed by fear & terror, from their own gov't, would be able to see the greater good of being freed by this invasion.

This is my opinion and only that, but:
I think this latest (western) generation has been so sheltered that we dismiss the real danger in this world, we really are floating in the clouds, detached from reality.

We're over here in our comfy-*ss homes feeding our guts and our egos, while the people of Iraq suffer tragedy EVERY DAY.
And you people are arguing to keep them enslaved to a terror gov't because the world needs to be a better place?

Harpyr, answer me this...
Let's say the US backs down to Iraq & North Korea and lets them do whatever they want, you don't think they'll use something as tempting as nuclear weapons to gain power & influence in this world?

About the weapons inspectors, who said flood the country with them...
That is just a ridiculous, fool-hearted, dreamer solution to this problem. That would be a impossible logistical nightmare for the UN to solve... let me remind you there would not even BE a weapons inspector in Iraq if it weren't for the US push in the UN to have them sent BACK in.

Now for the Osama/Saddam thing...
Who is Osama's biggest enemy, the US,
Who is Saddam's biggest enemy, the US,
What do regimes do when they have a common enemy, especially one with such overbearing power? They unite against a greater foe.

Ex#1: Yugoslavia united against the USSR, and once that greater enemy was gone they tore each other to pieces; but in the face of such surmountable opposition, they put their differences aside.

Ex#2: World War II, US/Britan feared/hated Russia, yet we allied against a common and very strong Nazi enemy.

In WWII we didn't even share ideological beliefs, but Saddam & Osama do,
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEY WOULD WORK TOGETHER ON ANYTHING TO HURT THE UNITED STATES, THEN YOU ARE A BIT TOO NAIVE TO BE DEBATING POLITICAL GLOBAL ISSUES.

Sorry to write so long, I tried stay in the middle and also be objective, but the arguments people are using are either dream-like(not based on reality) or juvenile(simply naive)

The first thing I learned from attorneys I've worked for in my law firms are, "You argue with your head, not your heart, arguing with your heart is the worst type of argument" that's a word for word quote.
An argument from the heart, although very moving & inspiring, is an unsuccessful one. We are man, logic is our gift, use it rationally to form a well-structured argument, AND TEAR MY POINTS TO PIECES, I IMPLORE YOU, PLEASE!

posted February 20, 2003 07:31 AM              

Pray for Peace.....