Why I oppose the war, and why I protest

[theapportioner]

One may think these two statements are equivalent, or that the latter follows from the former. It's a bit more nuanced than that, however.

I shall begin by cursorily introducing the supporters' arguments, which can be generalized into two themes: the moral argument and the pragmatic argument. The latter says that we should go into Iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction that can potentially harm us. The evidence presented thus far is circumstantial at best, and nonexistent at worst. An impoverished rationale for war. The moral argument says that 1) Saddam supports Islamist terrorism and that 2) we'd be freeing Iraqis from destitution and totalitarian rule, and introducing them to freedom and democracy, Americanizing them essentially. The first point is toss. The second point is the most legitimate of any of the pro-war arguments.

This second point to the moral argument is utilitarian -- do what brings the greatest good for the greatest number, while not doing more harm than good. While civilian deaths (sterilely objectified as 'collateral damage'), the doctrine of pre-emptive attack, the breakdown in international relations, and inflaming the Islamist movement can reasonably be described as harm, it would be very nice if millions of Iraqis could eat, be educated, live peacefully in a dynamic society, etc. However, given the deplorable recent history of American foriegn relations (history is crucially important, and something that Americans all-too-easily ignores and forgets -- see the Edward Said piece) specifically in the area of 'regime change' and 'nation building', the best we can reasonably hope for is another Nicaragua; the worst, another Iran.

The utilitarian argument necessarily must include a reasonable assessment of what will become of postwar Iraq. Unintended consequences are, obviously, impossible to predict, but we can say something about the probable effort America will put into the rebuilding of Iraq. What is needed (and I will perhaps go into this some other time) is far beyond the scope of the current administration -- that is to say, contracting out projects to Haliburton and others is merely the tip of the iceberg. If the best we can hope for Iraq is Nicaragua, then what was the point of all this? This is why I cannot support war.

(Other arguments made by the anti-war camp are legitimate concerns, but the above point is the deal clincher for me.)

Point two: why I protest. Contrary to what you may think, I don't do this necessarily because I do not support the war, and think George Bush is a rhesus monkey, though both are in play. Rather, I regard protesting as the exercising of our right to dissent, something that until the past few months has been sorely lacking post-September 11. A healthy self-cricitism, like scientific peer review, helps the nation. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the viewpoints professed, debate is healthy -- if you ignore debate your viewpoints degenerate to shit. But more than that, you have to listen to the debate. This exercise has been lacking in our nation's discourse -- just look at the ridiculous farce that passes for mainstream journalism these days. After Sept 11 the nation's (and I don't mean the government's necessarily, but our government's too) system of checks and balances broke down (though it was pretty bad pre-Sept 11th). To protest is to help right the ship.

[Helm]

Very well. However, the value of protesting as an end in itself, is very minute from a pragmatic point of view. It stands to make little difference in how the war is going to be handled in the end. I am going to explain how protesting not only ultimately means nothing, but also stands to hurt the anti-war position.

I also have participated in 3 out of 4 major marches in greece so far. In every one, there was a vast majority of usually young people that seemed to be there for fun. To enjoy themselves. To dance to catchy mottos, really. They'd rally up to the american embassy, and then immediately disperse towards a number of directions, including the nearby McDonalds, thinking their part has been done. Many people, I think, go there so they can feel okay with themselves at the end of the day.

Those marches, I think, operate partly as diffusionary measures, so that people can feel okay with their conscience, and still not dramatically alter their way of lives to suit their belief. If they protest a day, they won't have to stop drinking Coke or voting for a goverment that has given the ok to the US to use a greek island as a military base in this war. They do their part so they won't go down in history as baby killers.

I believe that the only way for us to stop the war right now, is by major strikes, all over the world. I do not believe there's any way for this to be achieved given the current historical circumstance. So, the next best thing, is to, come election time NOT vote for the same people once again. How likely is that? I can't tell.

In any case, on a personal note, if after the next elections, the geopolitical status quo remains much the same, I don't think I will ever participate in anything political again.

[VinceZeb]

Ill solve this real quick:

Iraq broke UN resolutions. SEVENTEEN of them. He had TWELVE years to disarm. We made a new resolution allowing force and military action to be taken if he did not disarm, Resolution 1441. He thumbed his nose at it. He hid weapons, hindered inspection processes, and broke the rules of the international law as set by the U.N. based on the cease fire agreement of Gulf War I.

Simple as that. Nothing else needed. We, the main country with balls in the world, went to take care of business and punish the snippy child. The first day, he fires a SCUD missile. He, by the terms of the cease fire and resolutions, can not possess SCUD missiles. Broke the rules. Blix didnt find that missle? Whatever.

Also, there were reports from intelligence sources that Saddam gave orders to oufit missles with chemical and biological weapons. Ya know, the things he does not have?

"Give time for the inspections to work", that is the big calling card of the anti-war movement. Well, guess what? THEY DID WORK! They showed he didn't disarm, and we are now taking care of business.

After examining the facts, the only way you could be truly against this war is if a) you are a peacenik, which in of itself is not a bad thing or b) you are just a bush hater. I dont care if Clinton or Gore would have done this fight, it would have been right all the same. Clinton was right to missle Saddam back during the Monica stuff, just the timing had sucked.

[Ronnie Raygun]

www.protestwarrior.com

[theapportioner]

Iraq broke UN resolutions. SEVENTEEN of them. He had TWELVE years to disarm.

Israel, at last count, has violated 64 UN resolutions, nearly four times the number that Iraq has broken. Where are our balls now?

[theapportioner]

The first day, he fires a SCUD missile. He, by the terms of the cease fire and resolutions, can not possess SCUD missiles. Broke the rules. Blix didnt find that missle? Whatever.

You really have not been reading the news. Those purported SCUDs were determined by the US military to be FROG missiles, which are not in violation. You've singlehandedly destroyed your own argument. Congratulations!

[VinceZeb]

It was reported that they were scuds, they had turned out to be frogs. Yeah, so what? I knew the evidence already behind it, I just typed it and didnt want to delete it, that was my mistake.

Yeah, and the last time I checked, Israel didnt murder off its own people. Besides, Israel has nothing to do with the U.N. Iraq has something to do with the U.N. The good ol' boys wont allow Israel to be in the UN, so it can break any UN resolution it wants, because it is not a part of it. Besides, the UN resolutions for Israel, if you want to look at them, are bogus and biased to begin with. The only thing that Israel does wrong (and its debated by myself), is building settlements on the West Bank. Besides, if you want to flare your pussy up about the plight of the "Palenstine state", go talk to Jordan, considering they kicked them out FIRST!

Please don't try to equate Israel with Iraq. It has been attemped before with no success with MUCH smarter people than yourself.

[theapportioner]

The good ol' boys wont allow Israel to be in the UN, so it can break any UN resolution it wants, because it is not a part of it.

You really don't know anything! Israel was admitted to the United Nations on May 11th, 1949.

Besides, the UN resolutions for Israel, if you want to look at them, are bogus and biased to begin with.

Those 64 resolutions had US support.

You must be exhausted, puffing so hard on a deflated argument.

[VinceZeb]

Being a part of the UN and actually having some say is different things.

I am part of this board, but there is no way in hell I have say in anything.

Yes, they have US support. Big deal! That was before a group of assholes tried to murder them off and push jews into the sea. You do know that the FIRST day Israel became an offical country, Arab countries went to war with her, correct?

The UN is a sham. I violate UN resolutions everyday. I wish we would pull out of the UN, it is like the worthless friend who talks about lifting the couch for years, then the US goes and lifts it without getting a census agreement, and then the UN wants equal say in where the couch goes, even thought it didn't do shit.

The UN has become nothing but the first step into the One World Govt that the liberals cream their pants over.

"OH YES! ONE GOVT FOR ALL! THE US OFF ITS ITS SUPERPOWER PERCH! NO MORE WEAPONS! FOOD FOR ALL IN OUR SOCALIST UTOPIA! NO CHIEFS, JUST INDIANS!"

[theapportioner]

I haven't had such poor competition in a long time, and that is saying a lot. Ronnie Raygun looks like the next William F. Buckley compared to you.

For the amnesiacs, let me quote what you said a few posts earlier.

Iraq broke UN resolutions. SEVENTEEN of them. He had TWELVE years to disarm. We made a new resolution allowing force and military action to be taken if he did not disarm, Resolution 1441. He thumbed his nose at it. He hid weapons, hindered inspection processes, and broke the rules of the international law as set by the U.N. based on the cease fire agreement of Gulf War I.

This, you claim, is why we should go to war. Because Iraq violated seventeen United Nations resolutions. Implicit is your support of the UN as a world governing body, whose resolutions should be enforced. You endorse the UN.

Now, to the present:

The UN has become nothing but the first step into the One World Govt that the liberals cream their pants over.

Now you bash it? Can't have it both ways, mon ami. You are a confused child. I advise you to go back to your multiplication tables and Berenstein Bears reading assignment before engaging in political discourse.

[theapportioner]

I believe that the only way for us to stop the war right now, is by major strikes, all over the world.

Interesting that you bring this up, cos Salon has a piece asking why the NYC protesters on Saturday were so cheerful also. I don't have a subscription anymore, but you can get a free day pass if you watch a minute of ads, or something.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

I do think protests, and civil disobedience, can only go so far. The next target should be the media.

[VinceZeb]

I dont believe I said that we should strike the entire world. Disinformation campaigns wont work.


No, the problem is I am the best competition you have. Thats why you try to discredit.


Ya know, the Gulf War never ended, if you want to get real technical. The terms of the gulf war cease fire (just like in Korea, kids. The Korean War technically has never ended) was that Saddam has to disarm starting in/by 15 DAYS! Did he disarm and show evidence of it? Don't think so. He broke the terms of agreement that were instated by the U.S. after his surrender. So thus, we are finishing the battle.

I don't like the UN, I just have to use the examples since that is wht the liberals worship. The U.N. knows all, is all, will be all. All controlling. All loving. All high. I would rather NEVER follow a UN sanction again and just do what the US feels what is right in its best interest. We follow the rules of the secular Vatican, and we get shit for it, we don't folow their rules, we get shit for it. Sorry, screw the U.N. If you want to move to a country that loves the U.N. and then still want to be there after it tries to install its "world" U.N. tax on the UN countries, go right ahead. I think most of the U.S. will just say fuck you very much.

[Ronnie Raygun]

U.N. American

[VinceZeb]

The U.N. is a weak institution. Its like an autographed baseball card. It's only popular because there is a demand for it. Could people truly function in a society without it? Yes. America can function just fine without the U.N. If you respect it, you give it power. Since we do most of the U.N. work, we can just walk out and the U.N. will be seen for the paper tiger it is.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Ya know, the Gulf War never ended, if you want to get real technical. The terms of the gulf war cease fire (just like in Korea, kids. The Korean War technically has never ended) was that Saddam has to disarm starting in/by 15 DAYS! Did he disarm and show evidence of it? Don't think so. He broke the terms of agreement that were instated by the U.S. after his surrender. So thus, we are finishing the battle.

Under this logic, the Israeli War for Independence has never ended, either. Thus, Palestinians must have EVERY right to atack IDF soldiers, and to attack Israeli "infrastructure," right?

[VinceZeb]

Yes, because a country that was given and recognized as a true functioning state has less rights and is equivalent to a group of people showing up on the doorstep of a country and saying it is theirs after they are kicked out of other countries.

Hows about this: I am going to pack up my possessions, go to your house, and camp in your front yard. I will claim that I am a part of an ancient civilization of Indians that lived there thousands of years ago and this is now my home. You will try to force me off my so-called "homeland" by putting up borders and then at random I will send out my people to murder innocent civilians in your house. And then I will claim it is for "liberation."

Do you have any sense of the real world, or are you a clueless idiot who loves "ideas" and not "action".

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Yes, because a country that was given and recognized as a true functioning state has less rights and is equivalent to a group of people showing up on the doorstep of a country and saying it is theirs after they are kicked out of other countries.

Huh? Who? When?

Anyway, you missed the point. The point was that your "never ending war" logic is naive.

Hows about this: I am going to pack up my possessions, go to your house, and camp in your front yard. I will claim that I am a part of an ancient civilization of Indians that lived there thousands of years ago and this is now my home. You will try to force me off my so-called "homeland" by putting up borders and then at random I will send out my people to murder innocent civilians in your house. And then I will claim it is for "liberation."

Bravo, very accurate analogy. :applause

The problem with it is that you could interchange the Palestinians with the Israelis in it. Contrary to whatever revisionist website you read, there WERE Arabs living in Mandadate Palestine during the Aliyah(s)!!! The Jews who immigrated there WERE going someplace where OTHER people were also living! Other people, who had lived there for MANY years with an Old Yishuv minority.

[VinceZeb]

Last time I checked, Jews and Jesurelam went hand in hand throughout most of history untill Muslim invaders kicked their ass out. Most of the Persian Gulf was crafted in the early to middle 1900's. And another thing I looked at was that there are ARABS living under Israel's borders and they seem to be just fine and dandy, living side by side by those evil blood-libel sucking the marrow from baby Muslim bones Jews.

Big whup, there were Indians living here when we took the country. Do you want to give your house back to them? Did not think so.

Besides, these people CLAIM they are a part of the group that supposedly lived there thousands of years ago! Prove it and they can have back their homeland. Besides, they were kicked out of Jordan by King Hussein back in the 70s because they were doing the same thing they tried with Israel. That isnt skewed history, that is fact.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Last time I checked, Jews and Jesurelam went hand in hand throughout most of history untill Muslim invaders kicked their ass out. Most of the Persian Gulf was crafted in the early to middle 1900's.

You are incapable of seeing how your Indian analogy applies to this example as well???

And another thing I looked at was that there are ARABS living under Israel's borders and they seem to be just fine and dandy

The standard of living for Arabs living within Israeli borders is certainly higher than that of those living in say the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, or anywhere else in the Middle East for that matter. They ARE discriminated against when it comes to things like funding of schools, etc., but I digress....

So what? Are you saying Israel should then absorb all of the refugees and improve their standard of living?

Big whup, there were Indians living here when we took the country. Do you want to give your house back to them? Did not think so.

Big whup, the Muslims kicked the Jews out a few CENTURIES ago, and you wanna give back the land now? See, your logic is flawed.

Besides, these people CLAIM they are a part of the group that supposedly lived there thousands of years ago! Prove it and they can have back their homeland.

Are the Jews living in Israel now the decendants of the Jews who lived there 200 years ago, or are they from elsewhere?

Besides, they were kicked out of Jordan by King Hussein back in the 70s because they were doing the same thing they tried with Israel. That isnt skewed history, that is fact.

Yeah, those Jordanians sure were benevolent and kind, to. It's funny how your talk of "liberating" oppressed people changes by the scenario.

Yes, Palestinian Jordanians were expelled ftom Jordan. Why were they there in the first place?

[VinceZeb]

The whole movement for the plight of Palenstien was made up as a terrorist front to begin with. They moved their and claimed it was their place, that is wrong.

So, as soon the unproven citizens of an ancient land get their "home" back, you go out on the street and give your house to an indian. Either put up or shut up.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

The whole movement for the plight of Palenstien was made up as a terrorist front to begin with. They moved their and claimed it was their place, that is wrong.

I would like to see you say this to my Jordanian friend whose family went into Jordan to escape the hardships of the West Bank. After I pull him off you, we could maybe have a civil conversation about it.

What you just said is wrong, I'm sorry.

So, as soon the unproven citizens of an ancient land get their "home" back, you go out on the street and give your house to an indian. Either put up or shut up.

Sigh. I'm really getting frustrated. You STILL don't see how your analogy applies to BOTH the Jews and the Arabs??????

[VinceZeb]

The Jews have an official state created by the U.N. (yah know, your favorite law institution), Palestine does not. And yes, I know I do not like the U.N. and I am picking and choosing at this point, but it is the only way I can make you see the facts.

And your friend doesn't concern me in the least. Perhaps he could use some of his big badassness to overturn that ostrich/frog hybrid that they call a leader. After that happens, and the jihad freaks are delimited, Israel and Palestine can have true peace.

[Protoclown]

As theapportioner pointed out, you shot your credibility in the foot when you "pick and choose" when you want to use the U.N. as an example to back your arguments, given that you don't "like them" or support them at all. You can't have it both ways.

[VinceZeb]

I gotta go by what is in stone now. Israel, even without the U.N., is regonized as its own state. We did not regonize the Taliban as the rulers of Afgahnastan, no matter if the U.N. does or not.

My credability is not out the window. You just dont want to see through your own crap and when I use your own weapons against you, you dont argue the facts, you just judge my credability.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

The Jews have an official state created by the U.N. (yah know, your favorite law institution), Palestine does not.

This is inaccurate. In 1948, the UNSCOMP decided on a partition solution. The Israelis of course accepted it, and the Palestinian Arabs rejected it. The UN still does, and always has to my recollection supported at least the IDEA of a Palestinian state. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they may endorse the two-state solution. Not positive on that, though.

And your friend doesn't concern me in the least. Perhaps he could use some of his big badassness to overturn that ostrich/frog hybrid that they call a leader.

He hates Arafat. He would if he could.

After that happens, and the jihad freaks are delimited, Israel and Palestine can have true peace.

It must be nice in la-la land, eh?