War Protesting in Schools

[Ugg]

I agree that we need to do something, I don't believe that it should entail bombing the hell out of Iraq.

Somewhere along the line we have forgotten the "walk softly" part of the Monroe Doctrine and I do believe that is what is missing.

I think that bombing Iraq is really a response to our inability to find all of Al Qaeda and bin Laden. And, trying to link al Qaeda and Saddam would be like trying to find a link between an American Fundamentalist Christian and a Wican. The two are anethma to one another and even a common enemy is unlikely to bring the two together.

Sanctions were working and the inspections are slowly achieving their goal. GW is willing to destroy the UN as well as American relations with some pretty important allies, twist the arms of the weakest allies, bribe those who are on sitting on the fence and probably destroy American good will in the middle east for the next half century and spend somewhere from 50 billion to 200 billion that this country can now ill afford. Why????????? What possible goal could be so important and if one exists, why aren't we being told.

[Cat]

if we don't do something they will continue to attack us

This is an unverified assumption, which is equally used by the terrorists themselves: "If we dont stop the ami's now they'll go on killing our fellow muslims".

I think if we have troops over there fighting for our country, then we won't have terrorist over here bombing our buildings.

Who sows wind will reap storm. Attacking a country is the best way of provoking a legitimate response attack.

What are our other choices?

France and Germany proposed an alternative. England seems to turn around too. I would like to suggest the following:
Try to discover the reasons for terrorism and
try to undo the reasons and causes for terrorism, without provoking new attacks. E.g. by using diplomacy instead of force. By eliminating hunger, ignorance and poverty. By supporting the development of democracy in a peaceful way. By setting an example for disarmament and respect for international treaties. In the long run I think this approach will yield better results than bombing and invading.

[toast]

twister: If we sit back and do nothing they will hit us again and again.

Please explain what "again" #1 and "again" #2 stand for. I must have missed that history class where Iraq invaded USA again and again.

I just mean that if we don't do something they will continue to attack us.

Continue ? Attack ? Really, I don't see what you mean. Please explain, give me some clues, I feel some Iraq offensive on the US has supervened and I've just missed it.

I think if we have troops over there fighting for our country, then we won't have terrorist over here bombing our buildings.

Don't you understand both are linked ? Don't you understand that terrorism results of US troops controlling some parts of Middle East ?
Do you think Israeli troops invading Palestinian land has stopped extremist Palestinian terrorism ? Don't you think it has fuelled it ? Can't you see any possible instructive parallel between the US Iraq attack and the Tsahal troops occupying Palestinian ruins ?

(1) Bomb explodes at Tel-Aviv >
(2) Tsahal invades 60% Gaza strip, on same night Sharon makes offensive speech against Al Aqsa martyrs to justify Tsahal moves >
(3) Isr. army kills two Palestinians, one aged 4, while replying to stone throwing from local population >
(4) Palestinian pop. makes dramatical buryal, population angers, some young males move to terrorism
(5) Bomb explodes in Jerusalem one month after. back to stage (1).

(This logic is detailed in Elizabeth Schemla's last report, as published in her last book. E. Schemla is a French grand reporter who has spent years 1995-2001 in Palestinian camps).

What are our other choices? Just do nothing and let them come over and kill our people?

Are you completely paranoid or just affected at some serious point by US propaganda ? You better know this straight: Iraqi army is not invading your continent tomorrow !
Moreover, you could transpose you own words into Saddam's mouth, as an excuse not to disarm. Just imagine the following is from Saddam Hussein:

I refuse to disarm because US is a permanent threat in Middle East. What are our other choices? Just do nothing and let them come over and kill our people ?

As you can see, your logic makes strictly no sense: it's a hawk strategy, a pre-emptive strike lie, and this behaviour is growing more and more unbearable as we learn everyday from Hans Blix reports that Iraq is disarming.

As I'm writing this, France Info radio just annouces that, in three minutes, the 3rd inspectors' report will be finished.

Iraq is disarming. Time for me to add a NO WAR mention in my sig.

[edX]

is it possible that unprovoked attacks will increase the number of terrorist attacks in this country? i mean, if someone declared war on you, would you not then escalate your attacks on them? besides, we have nothing but speculation linking sadam to terrorism - even in Israel.

we went after bin laden in afghanistan and have only done that half right. i could at least see the correalation there. so now that we can't find our real enemy, let's just attack the next guy we don't agree with? even israel had sadam where they could have finished him off not long ago and they didn't. why the sudden need to do something that has been decided against several times?
Let's deal with the terrorists where they are and not where they possibly come from. Let's continue to make sure they don't successfuly operate in this country or any other.

once more we are calling to 'liberate' a people we don't even know based upon our own fears and cultural norms. does this ring a bell? can you spell V-I-E-T-N-A-M?

[Cat]

Suddenly I am reminded of the only time I actually liked an american president in a movie (played by Jack Nicholson: guess the movie), because he tried the road of peace and diplomacy right up to his macabre end (and shouted down a hawk general ). Bad example maybe ... but still.

[twister]

Ok maybe my views are skewed, but everyones are tpp. There is no good answer to what we should do. When i said : "If we sit back and do nothing they will hit us again and again." i ment terrorists in general. We knew of Bin Laden and his ideas before Sept 11th and yet did nothing. Look what happened. Now we ideas that Saddam has weapons of mass distruction and I think we need to work on dis-arming him before he sets them off. Will he ever do that? We don't know. No one does.

Try to discover the reasons for terrorism and
try to undo the reasons and causes for terrorism, without provoking new attacks. E.g. by using diplomacy instead of force. By eliminating hunger, ignorance and poverty. By supporting the development of democracy in a peaceful way. By setting an example for disarmament and respect for international treaties. In the long run I think this approach will yield better results than bombing and invading.

good luck with that one. It sounds good but how realistic is it? It'd take houndreds of years to try and then what? Two single people argue every now and then, how would we be able to hold the world together? Someone will always disagree. I'll glady go for it if you figure it out though.

Anyways... these are just my thoughts. I won't discuss this topic any more because I don't think it would get us anywhere. I'm all for peace but don't think it's realistic until we get people like Saddam and Bin Ladden out of the way.

[Cat]

I'm all for peace but don't think it's realistic until we get people like Saddam and Bin Ladden out of the way. The only problem being they (arguably rightfully) think the same of Bush.

I know I made a strong and idealistic claim, but if we don''t work towards the realization of ideals, we will never get any closer to them. Reasons for terorism even I can name just here and now are: fear, oppression, ignorance, hunger, poverty, propaganda, fundamentalism (of any kind and religion, including Bushism). Instead of burning up millions in weapons, support development of third-world countries, or the world food programme, or the creation of schools etc. Specifically the US could set an example of respecting treaties by supporting them in the first place, like the non proliferation pact, and the Kyoto protocol. By unilaterally cancelling these and by threatening to make the UN irrelevant by solo - actions ultimately the US actually help and support the policies of "evil" countries. An attack provokes a reaction. if you want to avoid a reaction (terrorism), don't start with giving them a reason and a cause (bombing and invading). Using exactly the same reasons the US give for their actions, Korea could legitimately attack pre-emptively the US themselves.

[edX]

words of wisdom from twister
There is no good answer to what we should do.

this i can whole heartedly agree with. but that isn't reason for us to rush to do the greater evil in the name of anything that is good. and at this point, i think that is all most of the world is asking.

from where i see it, the 3 most dangerous men in the world right now are (in this order)

1) Osama
2) Bush, Jr.
3) Sadam

none of them are right. they're all very wrong. and you're right - there's no easy answer with what to do about them.