War Protesting in Schools

My view is that school is basically a precursor to work. If I leave without permission, I shouldn't get paid for it. However, sometimes that is the only way to grab people's attention and I support and RESPECT every student who stood up and protested. I think in this country we don't respect teenage opionion enough, only teenage spending power.

For all of you who have said that you will be glued to FOX when the action starts, remember that a lot of innocent people will be killed when those bombs start falling. There is no such thing as a "smart" bomb, only smart people.
 
My personal opinion, where were the protesters when Saddam was starving and killing his own people. Where were the peace protesters when Marines were being blown to kingdom come at this embassie or on that UN 'peace' mission. Where were the peace protesters when a small boat tootled up to a US warship and blew up killing sailors and destroying property paid for by out tax dollars. On and on...where were the protesters when Pol Pot was killing untold thousands of his own people. Where were the peae protesters when Idi Amin was doing the same? If a system of thought is not applied rationally and equally to all, it is not a rational system but invokes insanity in place of reality. On and on we can go with such examples.
 
So peace protesters alone are responsible for standing up for the rights of the wronged???? That sounds like a pretty off balance approach if you ask me.
 
ok I accept my punishment for leaving class as I would if I left work to protest. Now I agree the elementry students may not quite know why they are protesting (if they did), but High School kids do have an idea of why they are protesting. Not to do it because it was fun or cool but because we believe that it was wrong.

I thank all of you for your opinions and let the decision continue but please don't let it get out of hand ;)
 
Originally posted by phatcactus
It seems to be more about 9/11 and Bin Laden than Iraq. It doesn't mention Saddam or his nukes or his yummy yummy oil.

I'm no expert, but I thought this war was not about 9/11 or Bin Laden, but about Saddam having things that Bush doesn't want him to have. Or have I just not been watching enough Foxnews?

- Brian
Click to expand...

My point is we need to stop Saddam before he does something to the same scale as Bid Laden. If we can prevent a tragedy then we are all better off.
 
let's prevent one tragedy by causing another. where's the sense, or even logic, in that? :confused:
 
If we're in control I don't think it's going to be a tragedy upon us. If we sit back and do nothing they will hit us again and again.
 
-= As far as I'm concerned, all of you people who are for the war can go fight in it. :\ =-


Been there and done that ---- I spent many days in the middle east, after it was all done we went back as apart of IFOR (now its NFOR) to remove the mines and explosives so that the civilians wouldn't have come in contact with them... Mind you that saddam and others like him planted all these mines in the first place.... but didn't care if a child’s leg was blown off... instead we went back and cleared mine fields... And on to the protesting.... why aren't the protestors crying "exile to Saddam" whom has a long history of abuse towards his countrymen? This man kills and maims his fellow Iraqs. Yet we have human shields going there to protect him and to protest the US for wanting to defeat him and bring a regime change to the area. Why didn’t anyone protest against Saddam when he release chemical weapon in northern Iraq? Or when his troops kill other ethnic group in his country?

As far as I am concerned these protests are BS … and un-warranted….
 
Originally posted by edX
let's prevent one tragedy by causing another. where's the sense, or even logic, in that? :confused:
Click to expand...

A good friend of mine recently said: "Fighting for peace is like f*!ing for virginity."
 
I just mean that if we don't do something they will continue to attack us. I think if we have troops over there fighting for our country, then we won't have terrorist over here bombing our buildings.

What are our other choices? Just do nothing and let them come over and kill our people? If we back down they won't.
 
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.
 
if we don't do something they will continue to attack us
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Who sows wind will reap storm. Attacking a country is the best way of provoking a legitimate response attack.
What are our other choices?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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 :D ). Bad example maybe ... but still. :)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top