One Persons Take on the WAR Question...

[MJ-12]

war be bad boss

[Frank]

MJ-12: I would like to shake your hand and buy you a beer.

Yours,
Frank

[Lysear]

(the argument below is pasted from another topic i started without realising someone had already started it! so ignore the other one.)


I woke up this morning and went to the pub for a pint and a sunday roast. I checked my watch and then to my horror I realised that it was the 16th march. Tomorow my country could be at war. What did I have to show for 6 months deliberation? Nothing, I still hadn't decided which side of the argument I was comming in on. I have to admit it wasn't easy.having considered both the arguments for supporting this war and then the arguments condemning it I have reached a decision. I have decided to be anti-war. This is slightly humerous to me as I often find myself fuming about anti-war protestors, just going along to hold up a placard and gain some "street cred." Yes, there are plenty of these people around and it makes my blood boil watching them being interviewed, grinning away harping on about how war is bad, but not even giving a reason. I am far from one of these people. It was agony to chose a side as I believe there are good points made on both sides. I do however hold the belief that in any situation, you have to chose sides. Sitting on the fence is not an option, but sadly many people do just that. sitting on the fence achieves nothing apart from a useless talking shop, and the world didnt get to where it is today by talk.

I have made my decision based on numerous factors.
(1) the plain and sickly alterior motives of the "allied forces", if they wanted to topple Saddam Hussein for humanitarian reasons then why did they not do this over the last 12 years? answer= they now have the perfect oppertunity to do whatever they like post sept 11th. They have a blank cheque and the tools to use to enforce their will upon others.

(2) The bare faced hipocracy of the "Good Guys" Accusing Saddam Hussein of being a tyrant is one thing. Accusing him of treating people inhumainly is plainly another. Since when has the U.S.A ever stuck to the lines laid out in the Geneva convention (the Geneva convention met in the late 1950's at the end of the Korean war) We have the examples of the murder of countless Vietnamese, citezens of Laos and Cambodia with absolutly no proof that they were doing anything wrong. And lets not forget the use of economic sanctions! what a wonderful and humanitarian tool these are!! the only people who have suffered through sanctions in Iraq are the ordinary citizens. In Cuba, economic sanctions have crippled them, and all for what? being caught between a rock and a hard place in the 1960's. Whichever side they supported in the cold war they would have been in trouble. And finally, lets not forget the prisioners at Guantanamo bay (Cuba!!) these people are being held with no proof, chance of appeal and practically forgotten by the world.

(3)Iraq is a disgusting sideshow which is an attempt to make it look like something is being done about the war on terrorism. Wheres Bin-laden? and why havent they caught other key al-quieda figures? (okay so one or two they have caught but come on!)

(4) If the U.S and U.K etc are attacking Iraq for their human rights records then thats all fine and well. But why don't they attack Israel, China and various despicable regimes in Latin America? Let me attempt to answer that, its because there are allied interests there! They won't attack Israel because they are an important ally, America's "project" they are geographically positioned to help America's postion in the world. China is a keyu player in the U.N security council and too powerful for the U.S to defeat so they're left alone. There is a important word which sums all this, Appeasment. This "bad word" brings up images from the past, 1938 to be exact. The Munich conference where it was decided by world leaders in their wisdom to let the Nazi's get on with it for a few years and go to war later on!

Anyway I've gone on for long enough. I am well aware that I have only scraped the surface and not even covered the other side of the argument, but I am going to leave that to others over the next few weeks. I am also aware that America has been scapegoated here. This is intentional as its the U.S that is the worst offeneder, followed closely by as disgusting, immoral weasley Tony Blair of Great Britain, not to mention others. So I would appreciated a good argument on this issue.

[Frank]

Just to add a little local perspective, the Guardian newspaper... or the Grauniad as it is jockingly called due to that one fatal day they misprinted its name on the front header... is a newspaper that's sort of renowned for publishing cranky views on this and that. Which does add to the overall perspective created by the British press.

However, when such articles are quoted outside of that context, they can generate a wholly different impression than they would locally.

Another aspect people from other countries ought to consider is that articles such as these are generally laced with a *large* dose of irony. This article is no exception. Without that understanding, the article takes on a far greater degree of seriousness than would have been originally intended.

Yours,
Frank

[Anonymous]

I know what we can do to distract the governmnet- build lots of cloud-busters all over the country. If the chemtrail conspiracy is true, then someone'll be busy watching us. The only way to distract the government is to become obnoxious and unruly. Get all the weed you can and make a big gigantic pile of it out in a parking lot and set it on fire. hehe stuff like that would be funny to see on the news.

I think we should do what they did in Portland and storm some freeways. My friend was there, said she got pepper-sprayed and saw some guy get hit twice by a cop car (at low speed). I saw the incident on the news.

[clandestino]

just like to add another local perspective on the article - Julie Burchill is renowned for her "views" in the UK.

Why ? Because they are written specifically to get responses like the one from MJ-12...She isn't concerned with facts and reporting, only stirring controversy.

To cut a long story short, I'd really like to meet Julie Burchill and give the old trout a slap around the chops.
Mark

[Lysear]

I have decided to buy two papers for the duration of the conflict. The sun, because it is the most popular paper in Britain and therefore in theory represents the "thinking" of a vast ammount of people. I am also buying the independant every week which is a fantastic paper which rasies some important arguments. I suggest that anyone looking at english newspapers during the war buy the independant.

[Ash]

quote:Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior

The fact is that this war is about freedom, justice - and oil. It's called multitasking. Get used to it!

So, all in all, and at the risk of being extremely babyish myself, I'd go so far as to say that my argument's bigger than yours. Of course, you think the same about your side. And we won't change our minds. Ever. So let's do each other a favour and agree not to rattle each other's cages (playpens?) until the whole thing's over. Free speech and diversity - let's enjoy it!

this is without a doubt one of the most asinine things i've ever read. If I can paraphrase the above two quotes:

"So it's okay to bomb anybody who doesn't agree with your ideology, as long as they have something you want, and you say you're fighting for freedom and justice. Being free means other people aren't allowed to disagree with you. Being just means you are allowed to kill them if you're sure you're right.

But hey, if you don't agree with me it's fine. We shouldn't fight about it, because freedom means we're allowed to disagree without getting angry at each other. Unless of course you don't agree with me and I'm bigger, stronger, and more sure I'm right. In that case I'll blow you up"

[PeacefulWarrior]

EnderWiggin-
I just want to say that you represent the mantality of the anti-war sentiment very well.  Keep up the good work!  

The idea of the chem-trails is just the kind of think the protesters should be focusing on...[]

[PeacefulWarrior]

Why we should go to war with Iraq

Julie Burchill
Saturday February 1, 2003
The Guardian

In the mode of Basil Fawlty, I've tried not to mention the war. I know that Guardian readers are massively opposed to any action against Saddam Hussein, as are 90% of the people I love and respect both personally and professionally. But I am in favour of war against Iraq - or, rather, I am in favour of a smaller war now rather than a far worse war later. I speak as someone who was born and raised to be anti-American; I know that, even in my lifetime, America has behaved monstrously in Latin America, Indo-China and its own southern states. I was against the US because, whenever people sought autonomy, freedom and justice, it was against them. But that narrative is ended now and a new configuration has emerged.
The new enemies of America, and of the west in general, believe that these countries promote too much autonomy, freedom and justice. They are the opposite of socialism even more than they are the opposite of capitalism. They are against light, love, life - and to attempt to pass them the baton of enlightenment borne by the likes of Mandela and Guevara is woefully to misunderstand the nature and desires of what Christopher Hitchens (a life-long man of the left) described as "Islamo-fascism".

When you look back at the common sense and progressiveness of arguments against American intervention in Vietnam, Chile and the like, you can't help but be struck by the sheer befuddled babyishness of the pro-Saddam apologists:

1) "It's all about oil!" Like hyperactive brats who get hold of one phrase and repeat it endlessly, this naive and prissy mantra is enough to drive to the point of madness any person who actually attempts to think beyond the clichés. Like "Whatever!" it is one of the few ways in which the dull-minded think they can have the last word in any argument. So what if it is about oil, in part? Are you prepared to give up your car and central heating and go back to the Dark Ages? If not, don't be such a hypocrite. The fact is that this war is about freedom, justice - and oil. It's called multitasking. Get used to it!

2) "But we sold him the weapons!" An incredible excuse for not fighting, this one - almost surreal in its logic. If the west sold him the weapons that helped make him the monstrous power that he is, responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iraqis, then surely it is our responsibility to redress our greed and ignorance by doing the lion's share in getting rid of him.

3) "America's always interfering in other countries!" And when it's not, it is derided as selfish and isolationist. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

4) "Saddam Hussein may have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people - but he hasn't done anything to us! We shouldn't invade any country unless it attacks us!" I love this one, it's so mind-bogglingly selfish - and it's always wheeled out by people who call themselves "internationalists", too. These were the people who thought that a population living in terror under the Taliban was preferable to a bit of liberating foreign fire power, even fighting side by side with an Afghani resistance. On this principle, if we'd known about Hitler gassing the Jews all through the 1930s, we still shouldn't have invaded Germany; the Jews were, after all, German citizens and not our business. If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise. And that's where you link up with all those nasty rightwing columnists who are so opposed to fighting Iraq; they, too, believe that the lives of a thousand coloured chappies aren't worth the death of one British soldier. Military inaction, unless in the defence of one's own country, is the most extreme form of narcissism and nationalism; people who preach it are the exact opposite of the International Brigade, and that's so not a good look.

5) "Ooo, your friends smell!" Well, so do yours. We may be saddled with Bush and Blair, but you've got Prince Charles (a big friend of the Islamic world, probably because of its large number of feudal kingdoms and hardline attitude to uppity women), the Catholic church (taking a brief break from buggering babies to condemn any western attack as "morally unacceptable") and posturing pansies such as Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow and Damon Albarn.

Oh, and we've also got Condoleezza Rice, the coolest, cleverest, most powerful black woman since Cleopatra, and you've got the Mothers' Union, with their risible prayer for Iraq's people, a prime piece of prissy, pacifist twaddle that even Hallmark "Forever Friends" would reject as not intellectually or aesthetically rigorous enough.

So, all in all, and at the risk of being extremely babyish myself, I'd go so far as to say that my argument's bigger than yours. Of course, you think the same about your side. And we won't change our minds. Ever. So let's do each other a favour and agree not to rattle each other's cages (playpens?) until the whole thing's over. Free speech and diversity - let's enjoy it! Even though our brothers and sisters, the suffering, tortured slaves of Saddam, can't. Yet. Still, soon.