Call to Action: When the US War in Iraq Starts...

Then where to?

I have a suggestion for your protest . I was reading an article about young people in Australia protesting. Led by a Techno band, it's like a 'street-concert', involving hundreds, thousands of fans and poltically-minded dissenters aiming to make a difference, and have fun listening to good music while they do it.

Quite possibly this same type of protest could be used here in America. Take to the streets with music! It doesn't have to be techno. The style of music isn't the issue. But whatever music it is: local folk bands, heavy metal, alternative, jazz, hip-hop....OR just playing cds over loud speakers ...(everyone blasting the same song thru a loud speaker?) it'll get attention. And that's what it's all about. Protests happen all the time, but this is different. The media will have to cover it for shear novelty!

I think ANONYMOUS ACTION was advocating terrorism and mayhem because he feels frustrated that America would dare to defend itself.

I think the best form of protest is to make this war uncesesary, go to Iraq and convince Saddam to stop killing his own people.

Go Anarchy..Loot the gap, and smash McDonalds. We can not let the Amerikkan imperialist wage war on the innocent dictator. Be sure to mix 2/3 gas and 1/3 oil in your protest cocktails so it sticks to the storm trooper police. A rampage will surly convince the country to support your noble cause.

Watch out for the tear gas and pepper spray..

I love to watch a good riot..

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:


1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: "Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill's claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations."

Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.

Examples of Appeal to Ridicule


1. "Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."


2. "Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"


3. "Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!"

A funny thing happened to me yesterday at Camp Bondsteel (Bosnia): A French army officer walked up to me in the PX, and told me he thought we (Americans) were a bunch of cowboys and were going to provoke a war.

He said if such a thing happens, we wouldn't be able to count on the support of France.

I told him that it didn't surprise me. Since we had come to France's rescue in World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and the Cold War, their ingratitude and jealousy were due to surface at some point in the near future anyway. That is why France is a third-rate military power with a socialist economy and a bunch of wimps for soldiers.

I additionally told him that America, being a nation of deeds and action, not words, would do whatever it had to do, and France's support was only for show anyway. Just like in ALL NATO exercises, the US would shoulder 85% of the burden, as evidenced by the fact that the French officer was shopping in the American PX, and not the other way around.

He began to get belligerent at that point, and I told him if he would like to, I would meet him outside in front of the Burger King and beat his ass in front of the entire Multi-National Brigade East, thus demonstrating that even the smallest American had more fight in him than the average Frenchman. He called me a barbarian cowboy and walked away in a huff.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Mary Beth Johnson
Lt. Col, USMC

Col Beth is tuff but a little short on her history. We didn't bail out the French in Vietnam, we replaced them.Oh well Col, you just have to give orders not think.

She also seems to realize the American's didn't exactly rush over to save France.

The french surrendered before we had a chance...
Ironic were still babysitting the euros in Yugloslavia. Thay still can't sort out their little squabbles.

Oh come on. If Britain hadn't shown the way, America never would have got involved. As it was, it took them a few YEARS longer than the rest of the world.

I feel that we should get rid of Saddam. I feel this way because of the fact that he fails to follow the U.N. resolutions. He sits and laughs while he builds dirty bombs behind our backs (crude materialized nukes).

I also feel that he should be wasted because of the fact that he holds the worlds most valuable resource, oil (no offense to the naturalists). He sits back and plays price games, and dictates countries by gouging them. Oil is also his number 1 resource for getting weapons to fuel this war.

Here is another reason. He kills people who don't agree with him. When this last election came in Iraq for dictatorship, he won 98% of the vote, hmmm I wonder why, and I also wonder what did or will happen to that other 2%.

If we let a malicious, evil, self centered dictator have his way, then say goodbye to Israel and say hello to a great uprise in terrorism. This man is most likely funding alcaida forces with the money he makes with oil.

When I see people burning flags in America, the place that they consider home, it makes me sick. Those people have no consideration for the fact that the military goes out and dies for Americas freedom. When those soldiers come back from war already devistated by the aftermath, they get spatt in the face by their own people, the very people they fought to protect, the very people sitting at home with an SUV parked in front with food on the table and a roof over their heads.

If you people are going to sit back and say that "we are going to use militant force this time to prove a point for a poor dictator that likes to kill people uder his sheer will" THEN GO AHEAD!!!

Saddam is probably laughing right now, because he sees an America crumbling beneath itself because some terrorist hit the trade center. It would be best if you people actually let military wipe this dictator off of this planet, because from some of the things that I'm witnessing from messages is that Saddam has got you people fooled. You people probably think it's all about the oil and it's not, it's about some crazed madman building nukes, and who has a son ready to take his place in the future, so think about it for awhile.

I have no doubt that Saddam is a brutal man who has brutally killed many. But it is not the duty of the US (nor a good idea) to decide to overthrow the leaders of countries who abuse their own people. If we did that, we would be forever invading countries.

Besides, killing Iraqis in order to 'free' them is stupid...

Here's a telling quote from a Washington Post piece on "antiwar" protesters: "Look around. See how many people are here of my age," says the delightfully named Alison Oldham, 73. "A lot of seniors are involved in this because we've seen so much. You look back at the cemeteries in France and everywhere, and it's so sad. War is such a useless thing."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37271-2002Dec10.html

"Antiwar Effort Gaining Momentum," trumpeted the headline of another Post article, a week ago Monday. This is a puff piece about a group called Mothers Against War, which has "50 core members"--half the membership of the U.S. Senate--plus "thousands of supporters around the country and the world." But it doesn't sound as though many of these mothers are of childbearing age: "Most members of Mothers Against War are grandmothers in their seventies whose lives are already full."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61647-2002Dec1.html

Far be it from me to disparage the wisdom that can come with age, but the contrast between the youthful antiwar movement of the 1960s and the geriatric one of today is surely worthy of note. Among other things, it's yet another way in which today's war is not "another Vietnam."

The antiwar Web site Justview.org describes a visit by a group of clueless (and unphotogenic) activists to Tariq Aziz, whom the site misidentifies as Iraq's foreign minister (his actual title is deputy prime minister). "Mr. Aziz asked the group about the sentiment of the American public regarding plans for war with his country," the site reports. "He asked about the participation of university students against the war and asked our perspective on the effects of a war on the struggling U.S. economy."

http://www.justview.org

Justview doesn't reveal the answers to Aziz's questions, but how much do you want to bet the peaceniks unwittingly fed him misinformation: that the antiwar movement is (to coin a phrase) gaining momentum, that war would be terrible for the economy and so on? All of which is for the best. It doesn't hurt the American war effort that the Iraqis are relying on idiots for their intelligence.

Hey Vo, I see what you're saying about fighting every leader in this world. I have found out, and maybe you have too, that we have a few countries on our side right now, countries like Russia, France, and northern alliance in Afganistan (which scares nobody if you know what I mean). It would be a risky job to take out a leader controlling the worlds number 1 natural resource, because so many other countries don't want to have any bad stuff to happen to that resource, and knowing Saddam he would probably end up torching his wells once he found out about his defeat. I still feel that there is a way to bring Saddam to his knees in a manner which America would have no problems.

I completely and fully understand that war is probably the closest to hell living humans will get. For all of you anti war activists out there, I have never been in war, but my grandfather has. He never talked about his stories because they were to hard to talk about. But, war is the way it is. If you have ever heard the saying, "the blood of the dead is required for the tree of life to grow" you would understand. What this means is that sometimes for the well being of our country, war has to be. War formed this country. Brittan wasn't going to just drop their guns because of some preacher, so we had to fight them.

The moral of this little story of mine is that it's ok to think that war is bad, and go against it if their is no significant reason to fight, but think about the fact that if it weren't for war, we wouldn't have our freedom from england, or destroyed world dominating NAZIS, or destroyed an emperialistic empire named Japan that also set out destroy the world. So think for a second. War in many ways has helped nations, even though it effects those that suffered. And think of the many lives that a nation that fought saved.

There was no excuse not to go to war with Nazi Germany ( though the USA did a damn good job of sitting around picking its nose for 3 years after everyone else had decided to put a stop to it)
However, I really don't see Saddam invading the USA anytime soon, or even using WMDs. It's not a credible fantasy.

The euro's still can't prevent the fuckups in their own backyard. flashback to yugoslavian genocide and American intervention. We'll still be here to save democracy next time someone decides to steamroll poor helpless european nations...It was the amazing aresnal of western europe that bankrupted the poor soviets...

Is there a reason why none of these comments seem directly relevant to the posted article? OK, sure, we're discussing war ON Iraq, and whether or not we support it... which leads to war in general, etc, etc. War and violence is about (in)security, control, and domination... POWER. When was the last time you "kicked somebody's ass" (or wanted to) that it wasn't about these things? And what happens when you "win"? You're "in control" right? Now you can force your will and values upon somebody else. Democratic? Decidedly not. So, if we (the USA) are attempting to spread freedom and justice (wait, do our leaders even try and feed us that line anymore?) throughout the world, why are we not doing it in a manner that's in line with our supposed goals and values? Answer: we're not (trying to spread freedom and justice, that is). If we were, why not make aid to Iraq contingent on open, democratic elections and freedom of the media there, rather than on bogus (see Scot Ritter's documentary film) weapons inspections that can't prove anything in finality. Support democracy by supporting the people, not just trying to give them another dictator that sells oil to the 'right' people.

Of course, the same goes for the anti-war movement: mobilize, yes, violence, no. How can we put behind us something we are re-creating ourselves? How can we achieve peace through violence? What is the real intent of our actions? What can I expect to acheive by gathering with you on Powell and Market on the eve of a newly-publicized war?

Finally, with respect to treatment of veterans... it's a shame that those who were forced into service, as in Vietnam, are left to die haunted by war's demons. It should serve as a wake-up call to those who volunteer today of the anguish they may have to suffer. And shouldn't part of that decision also involve taking a good look around to see if the public really DOES support veterans? I think that the most honest people are those who say no from the beginning... they're not the ones leaving our veterans out in the cold (who's even been cutting overtime pay for our active-duty rank-and-file? GW!).

Peace.

my opinion on this whole ordeal of the war is ridiculous. i feel that everybody in this world should try to share everything with each other without greed. i am a christian and the idea of fighting is evil. why doesn't everybody wake up and talk to each other civilly. fighting is not only evil, it's also childish. petty garbage. thank you for your time and patience,
wings

Q: What do you call 100 Frenchmen with their hands in the air?

A: Their army.

Q: What do you call 100 Frenchmen with their hands in the air?

A: Their army.

the war began in 1492 and before. this iraqi thing is another in a long line of battles imperialists have initiated to keep a chokehold on the world's peoples and resources.

for those interested in stopping the war for good, come out on saturday to the truth, reconciliation and reparations tribuanal!

http://www.uhurureparations.org

matthew drools:
the war began in 1492 and before. this iraqi thing is another in a long line of battles imperialists have initiated to keep a chokehold on the world's peoples and resources. <<<

Thank God for the marxist regimes for the breath of freedom that they have supplied their peoples...

Why can't everybody see the superiority of North Korea, Cuba, and the PRC when it comes to allowing their peoples to breathe ?? What are you ..ignorant ??

Are you going to wear a name tag so we know that it's you?

Two can play that game. Is that what you want? Wouldn't it be better to talk it over instead? If not, why not?

Yeah. But they play it a LOT LOT better.

We had a name for guys like you back in my day. We called them "Tories".

If someone directly associated with Antiwar Action had posted this, they most likely have not put "Anonymous Action" as the author, and would have added their email to contact them.

Instead this looks just like some random person, or even someone friendly to AWA but who doesn't heed security culture protocols...

http://security.tao.ca/

And this is bad, why?

that *some* tyrannies are a good thing?

No, I think he is saying that he would rather live under the most laisez faire form of capitalism than a regime spawned by any of the post marxist critical theories that dogmatize the left. Most people with a brain and a library card agree. Nothing will do more to delay the eventual revolution than nuclear, wma proliferation among the Husseins of the world. In fact, to delay a global economy is to delay global socialist, communist revolution. If you really want to fight the revolution, get a life and an MBA. Doesn't anybody read Trotsky anymore?