Who marched? - Page 2

The civilian deaths directly attributed to the U.S. would be minimal and not thousands. This isn't World War II. And, to add to that point, U.S. Weapons are 85% more accurate than in the Gulf War.

The only reason thousands would be lost would be if Saddam does something. Like putting his own people where he knows where an airstrike is going to happen, and after the U.S. bombs it, he says something like, "Why did you kill all those people?"

It must be wonderful being under the delusion that I'm spoon-fed everything and you're the true free thinker around here. You take orders and directions as automatically as any robot. The myth of free thinking and independant liberal thought has become tiresome and laughable.

And I'll eat my hat if those marches yesterday were "only about Iraq". The anti-semitic contingent was out in full force. As was the radical animal and environmental rights groups. These marches, organized by International ANSWER ( A group that has supported the Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Chinese government's crackdown in Tiananmen Square) are primarily anti-capitilist rather than anti-war.

/qb]
The New York Times has become a mere shadow of its former self. They need to keep the editorial pages on the editorial pages, instead of letting it spew out and flavor the news they report.
In that sense, they are no different than Fox News. At least Fox allows the other side to speak.

Saddam is already moving his military assets o civilian centers. He's the one utilizing his people as a human shield.

"My precious Fox News" is a funny quote though....

And secular leaders don't hate the US? How is Saddam's secularity relevant here?

Oh, and Saddam's been swinging at us for 12 years.

86, reports indicate at least 2000 innocents died in Afghanistan.

Blofeld, who cares? We're going to bomb civilian centers anyway. It's the way war is wages these days. I think it's funny that you call out the protesters for their lack of knowledge.

Of course he is. Who here can possibly be shocked by this? Rather than holding the man responsible for the deaths of his own people it's so much easier to blame the United States. That's so much more chic in many circles than blaming Saddam.

Exactly.

Please back up any of this with unbiased, reputable sources.

The adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" came from the Middle East. I'd imagine that they have worked together. Of course, the evidence that has been provided is not iron clad, but it is pretty good.

I suppose our support for groups like the Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi Shiites, and even perhaps the state of Israel would fall under your definition of supporting terrorists. Of course, a lot of people don't see it that way, but you are entitled to your views.

From here: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.irq.protests/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.irq.protests/index.html</a>

I'm sure Saddam was simply gleeful yesterday. Congratulations on getting on the good side of a horrible dictator.

So you're in the NSC briefings now, are you Devin? If not, how can you reconcile your above statement with the actions we took in 1991, in 1998, during the 12 years of no-fly zone enforcement, during Afghanistan, and what the Bush Administration has said they are going to do? The civilian casualties have arisen as a result of people placing their forces in the midst of civilians, or else bombs not falling where they were meant to. The US has done everything in its power to ensure that civilians are kept safe, which is far different than what our opponents have done.

It's not that I'm the only free thinker around here, it's just that *you're* one of the few Dittoheads.

But, really, what's laughable is how you follow that charge up with this tired assertion that the real thrust of yesterday's march was anti-capitalistic in nature. Again, you're getting your marching orders from dubious sources. Most people who attended these marches wouldn't be able to tell you who organized them. Because of this, yesterday's protests were much larger than the organization(s) behind them, and lent no further legitimacy to their cause (in fact, I'd be surprised if there were any anti-Capitalist speakers given a microphone at any of the major marches).

They do not have the details. They're marching on principles, which have little to no bearing on specific details of this situation. They wish to believe they have some power outside of casting their vote once every 4-years. They will be the first to point at their lives, and say "how terrible!" when government actions directly effect them -- you know, I think it'll be fun when the French are attacked, and they scream for U.S. action to protect and avenge them. You, too, Iceland. Wait til it comes to your shores. Who will you want in your corner then?

Do I want this? No.

Do I want us to take NO action based upon the general principles of people who do not have the knowledge of what is truly going on ? No.

Do I blindly trust the administration? No. But they were the administration placed in office by the power the public does have -- and give up on the Floridian argument, it doesn't hold water with the facts (and maybe if more of those folks marching for peace had gotten off of their asses on election day...)

Do I think that the issue is out of my hands and that those in power need the room to make the proper decision, whether I agree with it or not? Yes.

We're not going to bomb utilities and other infrastructure points? Really?

What did we blow up in Afghanistan?

The US knows where Iraq's army is. Also, there is no place to hide. Iraq is a damn desert.

Civilian centers are different than key infrastructure points. Really, I don't know if we'll bomb them at all. Instead, we'll use an EMP cruise missile to knock it out without damage to the building and people themselves.

You're saying the NY Times doesn't? They do a much better job of it on their op-ed page than the Wall Street Journal.

As for outside of the editorial page, the Times is still very reliable. (They've had some regrettable hiccups as of late, particularly with silencing Dave Anderson's Augusta piece in the Sports page, but what paper hasn't?) The left-skewing reportage is usually found under the banner of "News Analysis", but you can find the same kind of writing with a conservative bent in the Chicago Tribune.

However, if we're talking about straight-up reportage, I think the Wall Street Journal is still tops.

Are you aware of who won the popular vote?

Sorropa, 86, kindly send postcards from FantasyLand.

Does the popular vote matter?

Nope. Not in our system. The system has been that way for how long? Should there be changes to the system? Perhaps.

But all of that matters not to this argument.

There's no telling how Gore would be handling these events, except from people who believe that armchair quarterbacking holds value -- you know, the same kind of people who got out in the sunshine yesterday.

And that's where I despair.

Good post, though, Blo, even if I disagreed with a good deal of it.

Loved learning about these things. The damage they can do with a simple pulse is fascinating. These and the new "microwave" weapons should make things veeeeery interesting.

Devin, you are the first person to go for personal attacks against people who disagree with your point of view.

Here you are
<img src="http://www.4president.org/bush2000PostCard1.jpg" alt="" />

Unfortunately, they did. And I think too many of them voted for Ross Perot of the Democrats, Ralph Nader.

That would be only unfortunate if they were Floridians.

True. And, judging by the final vote tally in the Sunshine State, it was *tragically* unfortunate.

Wow they changed it from the electoral college to popular vote. Shit I missed that Constitutional change.

(damn its so hard to stay out of this shit)

As much as I like revisiting the Bush win in 2000, it REALLY has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. In any way.

You hit it on the head for me.

I think it's too bad that people have such apathetic, defeatist attitudes. If everyone had such attitudes, women wouldn't be able to vote and black people would still be riding the back of the bus.

Good grief, that puts you firmly on the side of "right and enlightened" doesn't it?

The 2000 election debacle was fun to rib on for a while, but it's a little too late to complain now. Besides, the writers of the Constitution knew not to put too much power in the hands of the people as they are more beholdent to immediate emotional reactions than reason, which would lend itself to a greater potential to fuck up things big time. Well that and the smaller states needed some extra love. The point I tried to make is really all in that second sentence.

Pretty much. Imagine being made fun of for thinking you're on the side of the good guys.

You are not anymore "right and enlightened" than anyone else on these boards. You are not on the side of the good guys anymore than anyone else on these boards. In this complex and complicated world, there isn't any "right" and "wrong." It's all shades. You are no more enlightened because you hold onto the perceived value of your actions to policy decisions. You hold an opinion. I hold one. The squirrel in my dishwasher holds one -- he'd like out. I want him in. Who is right or wrong? No one. Neither of us. Who will win? Me, I have the power, I pay the rent. The squirrel will remain in there until his ass is escorted out the door.

You are boorish.

There is right and wrong. There are shades in the middle, but there are things that are just wrong.

It's wrong to invade a nation that did not attack first. It's wrong to kill people "pre-emptively." It's wrong to set up a bad situation in a region and solve it through force of arms decades later.

It's wrong to send American citizens into harms way to fulfill the agendas of the rich jerks who control this country.

And what's really boorish is to come into a thread about people talking about what they did to make a change in their world and throw around your uninformed negativity.

I, unlike you, don't hold people in contempt as swine because my opinion is higher and more enlightened.

You fancy yourself so much more intelligent, informed and MORAL.

You're not. You live in the fantasyland, here.

I'm glad you got some exercise yesterday. I really am. But the thought that that MINORITY who chose to march yesterday might impede the decision-making process when it comes to issues of our national security ... when those people have no idea of the reality of the situation (anymore than I do), rankles.

They want to believe in their power for right and wrong, over the power of those who truly hold it. The people in power were chosen by us, under the system of election as set up by us, and need to be granted the ability to perform their duty -- the primary one being the protection and safety of our citizens.

If the people with the intelligence deem it necessary to strike pre-imptively against Iraq, so be it. If they choose to take out the Taliban, so be it.

You'll get your say again in '04.

Or, actually, you can have your say now. You know, by expressing what you think.

As opposed to the MAJORITY who run this country?

You're mixing apples and oranges, Devin.

How many people marched as compared to how many didn't? The surprising LACK of people out and about speaks volumes. You're so proud because so many people showed up for peace. How many didn't? It's either because the issue wasn't important enough for them, or because they don't agree with your position. Or because they realize the futility of the action. Or because they're duct-taped in their closets out of fear.

In any of those cases, they are just as right and enlightened as you.

What a dopey argument. You're saying that because only huge numbers of people turned out globally it is meaningless? It would only count if the entire population of the Earth showed up?

No, what's dopey, is that there's no place for relativity in your philosophy. You use yourself as the only measuring stick of right and wrong.

Stop changing your argument. Is this about my arrogance or about the fact that millions of people came out across the globe to protest and how meaningless that is? Focus.

Here's a focus for you: I'm going out in the world to impact MY life now. You sit in your apartment all high-minded, okay? And believe you're making a difference in Iraq. And keep believing the rest of us are swine who don't know our asses from our noses. And keep believing, in the safety of your dead-bolt locked apartment, on the administration protected street, that you're safe from harm simply because you're more right than the idiots in positions of true power.

Guys...hot damn. I get into personal arguments as much as the next guy, but I think you're JUST taking personal potshots at this point.

You may want to move this exchange to PM or E-Mail. Just a suggestion.

If not, run for fucking public office.

Besides, you guys probably won't even see action. I, on the other hand, might. Being draft age and all.

Even if I were drafted I would not go.