This appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, my local newspaper. And it's probably the most sensible thing I've heard on the Iraq war in ages.
Quote:In the summer of 1999 warplanes pounded Serbia into submission. The U.S. flew the vast majority of the sorties in an operation that marked Europe's most sustained aerial assault since the era of the Stuka. The mission succeeded. Slobodan Milosevic fell.
Intervention had two goals. (1) defending Kosovo against Serbian aggression, and (2) changing the regime in Belgrade. Years of diplomacy had failed to restrain the malevolent appetites of Slobo and his wife, "The Red Witch". They responded only to the unassailable argument of Allied military might.
President Bill Clinton did not seek formal congressional approval before commiting the U.S. to war. Neither he nor Jacques Chirac nor Gerhard Schroeder sought permission from the UN Security Council. They acted without an official UN mandate.
Serbia never directly attacked any of the countries that staged the relentless offensive. The U.S. did not drop bombs to defend itself. The campaign failed several of the tests associated with the doctrine of the so-called "just war". Demonstrators did not take to the streets to say that war never accomplishes anything, that malignant violence cannot be met with countervailing violence, that the United States has no business pursuing regime change.
Slobo is a nasty piece of work.
Saddam is worse.
Truer words have never been spoken. The liberal anti-war movement is hypocritical and selective. War is only evil when a Republican president pursues it, I suppose.
Now more than ever I find no credibility with anti-war people.
Comparing those just doesn't make sense... for one the war in Kosovo didn't involve ground troops, just planes... that alone is a huge difference from Iraq...
Other than that I don't remember how many antiwar protests there were... not this many thats for sure but this would be a much bigger war...
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Comparing those just doesn't make sense... for one the war in Kosovo didn't involve ground troops, just planes... that alone is a huge difference from Iraq...
Other than that I don't remember how many antiwar protests there were... not this many thats for sure but this would be a much bigger war...
Come on, you can do better than that. Why don't you try to justify why it was okay for Clinton, Chirac and Shroeder to attack without a UN mandate but we can't do that now? That's the real reason I posted this, you know.
Regardless, the fact remains that you anti-war pansies said nothing when we rained destruction on Belgrade, and it is very possible to rain destruction and death without using ground troops. Come on professor! I know you wouldn't magically support this war even if it were conducted totally in the air and you know it too. And you and I both know this war will be over in a matter of a few weeks. The Kosovo war lasted a few months. So your argument of the war's supposed magnitude is irrelevant, and untrue to boot.
I could say more... but its late and I'm tired... maybe tomorrow...
Oh, and length isn't the best measure of the scale of a war... the Gulf War wasn't super long but it was a much bigger war than Kosovo... that 'war' had no American battle casualties and no ground combat... and we only won (with no ground= presence) because of ground resistance troops to put on pressure... sort of like Afghanistan, only with a modern nation, and a populace that finally got so fed up they overthrew their leader...
Its not like I think military force should never be used... its just that in almost all cases there are better options...
Afghanistan. That war (and the whole Taliban issue) would have been avoided if the US had just not abandoned the Afghanis in the mid '80s and let them fight eachother... as we know now (I hope... but given Bush, we never know... I wonder if he'll follow up in Afghanistan. He hasn't done too well on much of anything yet so I wouldn't bet on it...), training them to fight and then leaving just doesn't work... but at least there (and, it turned out, in Serbia) there were legitimate forces that could take over the government once we destroyed the one there... in Iraq there's nothing. No strong resistance group... certainly none that we'd want in power... and there's also Bush's promise not to be an occupying army. I see no way out of that... killing Sadaam will leave a power vacuum that will require SOMETHING. Peacekeepers would be a good idea... but Bush hates peacekeeping, as he proves when he refuses to let the peacekeepers in Afghanistan be in numbers significant enough to make much of a difference, and refuses to let US troops in Afghanistan be peacekeepers...
I'll say something more tomorrow...
Oh, and I wouldn't say the Kosovo war was right either, of course... but Slobodan Milosevich was at the time fighting with the Kosovars... and committing atrocities. We couldn't let that happen again... not after letting it happen before (Rwanda... or Bosnia in the early/mid '90s...)... but I'm not sure offhand what we should have done, really. It ended up well for us, sure... but that was never the issue... Was Slobodan more of a threat than before? Well... no, he wasn't doing anything he hadn't been doing for years (namely killing off minorities)... why then to intervene then? I don't know. They should have done a lot more years earlier to stop him... more peacekeepers, etc... but the UN dropped the ball like in Rwanda...
Oh, and at least in Kosovo NATO agreed that we should fight! We don't even have that this time...
But why would NATO, without UN backing, attack Serbia and say it's okay, but in a situation of slightly greater import, refuse?
Considering the two other particpants on our side in that war, I believe Germany and France only want us not to fight because they have so much to lose if we do. France has lucrative oil contracts that they want to keep, and it's suspected that the Germans have been selling them weapons materials. If not for those points I don't think NATO would so strenously object.
If those two really do have nothing to hide, then they're just being world-class hypocrites.
I really don't understand why such an overwhelming amount of people are against war. [sarcasm]Oh yeah! It's because Bush is just out to get oil money and finish what his father started! Why didn't I see this before?[/sarcasm] When war protestors say "the world is going to hell" they sure aren't kidding. Letting mad men run wild and free (the way nature intended them to be, doncha know) is brilliant way to make the world shittier than it is. Thank you, anti-war demonstrators! Without your help, terrorism just wouldn't be possible!
But who will take over ze world if we don't have evil geniuses? Yeah, I know the main threats right now are just evil idiots, that you KNOW of, but there's this one evil genius in Tazmania that shall make the world shake, or something, because he has an Earthquake machine.
*Runs "Save the Evil Geniuses" telethon*
Send us money to save the evil geniuses, it's hilarious! This joke has NOT been done to death!
These are two very different situations. Bush wants to attack Iraq because of their alleged WOMD, while Clinton attacked Serbia because Milosevic had been killing millions of people over the span of a few years. The UN did absolutely nothing about this until after the U.S. and NATO came in and stopped it.
Quote:Originally posted by OB1
These are two very different situations. Bush wants to attack Iraq because of their alleged WOMD, while Clinton attacked Serbia because Milosevic had been killing millions of people over the span of a few years. The UN did absolutely nothing about this until after the U.S. and NATO came in and stopped it.
The point is, he could have done that anytime during his first six years in office. He waited six years to take care of what should have been taken care of in 1993. I think we were totally right in nailing Serbia, but I think it should have been done much sooner.
If liberals can use oil as the reason we want to bomb Iraq, fine. But it goes without saying that Clinton certainly did wait a long time to take care of Milosevic... in fact, he waited until right after that infamous scandal that led to his impeachment. Going to war is a great way to divert attention from your criminal activities, no? But he's a Democrat, so that's just fine. Liberals can do no wrong.
You're right, he should have gone in much sooner, but would it have been different with Bush?
Quote: He waited six years to take care of what should have been taken care of in 1993.
Well, 1991 actually...
The police didn't arrest him for wearing that shirt ABF. He was arrested for trespassing. All businesses on land they own have the right to kick anyone out for any reason at all, inlcuding smacking your food too loud.
Your beef is not with the police, who were doing something perfectly just by arresting a man who refused to leave private property. Your beef is with the rent-a-cops in the mall (who by the way don't have legal authority, just so you know, they just get orders to patrol buildings based on orders from the company alone) or whoever in charge of the company decided that shirt was offensive. I agree that the company was being VERY stupid and anti free speech by doing that. It is indeed quite idiotic, but it has nothing to do with the police, just the company. Again, make it clear to you that the reasons are totally irrelevent when it comes to kicking someone out. The police are legally unable to say "he can stay here because your reason for kicking him out is deemed by us as stupid, and hey malls are different than houses".
You see, it's not quite "sickening" just yet because it's just a company doing this. If the police actually were arresting him because of the shirt (which they weren't, the shirt didn't matter at ALL to the police, AT ALL), THEN I'd be sickened.
Fleebin floobin chase a ruupie.
Its insane that someone would be kicked out for wearing a antiwar shirt... but things like that happen now. But too many people seem to think its ok -- after all if you're against war you're unpatriotic and must hate America or something... yeah, that's generalizing, but its a too common opinion that has no sane basis...
And yes the problem was with the mall cops... but still. Its insane.
Being that it comes from the Clinton News Network, I really deign to think there's a shred of credibility to the story. It may have been a dumb reason to be told to leave, but when he refused to leave, he did break the law. And private establishments can tell anyone to get lost for whatever reason they want, because you're on their property.
Oh, I forgot -- naturally CNN lies because they have so-called "liberal medai bias"! Sure, of course they make up stories! Naturally... and of course no one has ever caught them doing that. Yup. Uh huh. You do know how stupid you sound? If it was some random website maybe, but this is a major media source... they may stretch the truth at times in some places (on what news they report and how), but they don't lie...
News sources, even major media sources, make mistakes. While I certainly don't agree with calling them "liars", I will say that ALL major news sources fall prey to urban legends and such every now and again. Let's not forget that pretty much every year around Halloween they always warn the parents to "inspect the kid's food for poison and razor blades", which of course simply aren't hidden in candy by madmen, who actually spend their time kidnapping children instead. Oh, let's not forget that there is NO real way a parent can be expected to somehow have been blessed with holy knowledge of what is and is not tainted just because they are parents. As I've said, news sources, even major ones, should be a person's STARTING POINT for gathering information. They should not be the quick fix for "instant accuracy" (even though most news show commercials advertise using those exact words :D). Rather, when you hear something interesting on the news, take time to decide "is this something I'm interested in knowing about?", and if you decide yes, look up many seperate sources on this info. This is how you find out about the world around you. You can't expect to just watch some TV and be instantly informed. You must be willing to put effort into it if you want to know what's going on in the world around you.
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Oh, I forgot -- naturally CNN lies because they have so-called "liberal medai bias"! Sure, of course they make up stories! Naturally... and of course no one has ever caught them doing that. Yup. Uh huh. You do know how stupid you sound? If it was some random website maybe, but this is a major media source... they may stretch the truth at times in some places (on what news they report and how), but they don't lie...
I know the story isn't fabricated, but I also know CNN has a definite liberal bias, and they're hardly above putting a spin on a story, especially one that is intended to trigger outrage.
It's funny, you're a lot hotter under the collar now that the topic has shifted. I think I got ya.
CNN didn't post everything that was on that shirt. The front of the shirt had a picture of George W. Bush, and the words, "International Terrorist". The back of the shirt said "Give peace a chance". I think it's lame how the liberal media is so warped into telling people lies that they know will stir up controversy.
What the words were really shouldn't change anything... it should not have happened. Period. Idiot security guards...
You know though, now I do see why that company would do that. Having someone walking around with a "potentially offensive shirt" like that could have been viewed as something that would disturb other customers. They merely wanted to remove the offensive element.
Now then, that's just their viewpoint I'm stating. Here's why they are still morons. If they found it offensive, they shouldn't have allowed the stores to sell that shirt (the owner of the mall leases out the store space, they can of course do this). That's just the first problem. The second issue is that the company totally forgot that the scene actually calling the police and reporting a trespasser (for their reasoning, which again is irrelevent to the law, which is of course why I don't find this law related at all) would in fact be something that would hurt store image, doing a lot more damage than simply letting him go unbothered and then doing as they would regarding the store that sold the shirt.
Now then we reach why it's stupid that they would even bother getting upset over the content of the shirt. Do I find that shirt stupid? Yes of course. However, there wasn't any illegal content on the shirt, or things that are extremely offensive. It was a political statement, which is something stores, if they value profit, should not ever get involved in. They of course were perfectly within their rights to refuse service for any reason at all, but of course the reasons stores don't do that constantly is because it affects sales, like this most certainly will.
In other words, the store managers, or security guards, or company owners, or whoever made this decision are clearly morons. However, no rights were infringed upon here until the guy refused to leave private property.
I'd sure say rights were infringed on when the security guards told him to leave for such a spurious reason as that...
There's the thing. His rights were NOT infringed upon because you don't have the right to be on private property when the owners don't want you there. As I said, they have the right to kick him out for whatever reason they want.
I'd say they're infinging on his right to free speech...
http://www.msnbc.com/local/WNYT/M276307....NB10&cp1=1
Quote: GUILDERLAND, N.Y., March 5 - The management at Crossgates Mall Wednesday asked the Guilderland Police Department to drop the trespassing charges against a Selkirk man. This came after about 100 protestors descended on Crossgates Mall that afternoon. Their "Mall Walk for Peace" protested the arrest of 60-year-old Stephen Downs, who was charged with trespassing Monday night when he wouldn't leave the mall after he refused to remove his T-shirt bearing a peace message.
DOWNS AND HIS SON, 31-year-old Roger Downs, each had a pro-peace shirt made Monday night at a store in the mall. One shirt simply said "Let Inspections Work" on one side and "No War With Iraq" on the other. The other shirt said "Give Peace A Chance" on the front and "Peace On Earth" on the back.
The men say they were not disturbing any shoppers, but their presence apparently caused enough of a disruption for one Macy's employee to report them to mall security. When security approached them in the food court, Downs and his son were asked to remove their shirts. Roger Downs complied, but when Stephen Downs wouldn't, he was told to leave the mall. When he refused, he was arrested for trespassing.
Demonstrators upset about the trespassing charge arrived at Crossgates shortly before noon Wednesday wearing similar peace messages. At 12 p.m., they entered the mall together and sat down for lunch at the food court. They said they were doing what Stephen and Roger Downs should have been allowed to do.
When a few protestors decided to get a little more vocal, a 55-year-old veteran carrying a sign reading "Remember 9-11" confronted them. The veteran yelled at the protestors and then went so far as to push some of the men.
Organizers say they still consider the day a success, and that they got their message across: that everyone should be able to exercise their first amendment rights, even on mall grounds.
"There are a lot of people who are perfectly okay with coming here and shopping here but are totally opposed to the idea that this mall can censor people's opinions," Craig Willis of Troy said.
Both mall security and mall management were pretty much absent during the most of the two-hour protest. Management did issue a statement saying Downs' behavior and his T-shirt were disrupting customers.
Downs and his son said on Tuesday that's not true.
"We were just shopping. We were wearing these T-shirts. We weren't handing out leaflets, we weren't saying anything," Roger Downs recalled.
Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that "wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited" at the mall.
Stephen Downs was due in Guilderland Town Court on March 17. Many of the protesters said they would be there, too, to again show their support.
However, Tim Kelley, a spokesman for the mall, said late Wednesday afternoon that the mall has asked the town of Guilderland not to pursue legal action.
Umm, I don't know what you heard Weltall, but the fact is the shirts just said
Quote: One shirt simply said "Let Inspections Work" on one side and "No War With Iraq" on the other. The other shirt said "Give Peace A Chance" on the front and "Peace On Earth" on the back.
...
That article goes into more detail... read it. They weren't doing anything except wearing those harmless t-shirts... yet mall security kicked them out.
At least after this publicity they dropped charges...
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I'd say they're infinging on his right to free speech...
Sorry to tell you this, but you're not guaranteed the right to free speech on someone else's private property. That amendment is to protect you from official government persecution or harm, and to protect your rights in the public domain. But if you're on someone else's piece of land, they have the right to tell you to get lost, and the first amendment does not give you the right to say no.
Quote: Both mall security and mall management were pretty much absent during the most of the two-hour protest. Management did issue a statement saying Downs' behavior and his T-shirt were disrupting customers.
Downs and his son said on Tuesday that's not true.
"We were just shopping. We were wearing these T-shirts. We weren't handing out leaflets, we weren't saying anything," Roger Downs recalled.
Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that "wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited" at the mall.
I don't know exactly what was true... its unclear. But it sure seems like the mere presence of shirts that said, as I quote agian,
Quote:One shirt simply said "Let Inspections Work" on one side and "No War With Iraq" on the other. The other shirt said "Give Peace A Chance" on the front and "Peace On Earth" on the back.
was "disruptive" to mall security. And that is disgusting.
qoute by jean chreitien involving irag,
if it were posible to sing the song my "favorite things" and wish this all away we would do it.but this is reality you cant just let things go by and wait for the worse.
in respounce to the anti war opposition."NDP"
canada would aid the U.S as long as it is legal.
Weltall is correct. His right to free speech was not infringed upon because the real police didn't arrest him because of the shirt. He was arrested for trespassing. The mall is the one who decided why he was trespassing, but that's not part of free speech.
I didn't read much of the post...but I also came across an EDitorial (by Ed the Sock), made on Feb. 17. I don't agree with all of his opinions, but this is one of the better editorials or rants against a war on Iraq.
Quote:Like many other cities, Toronto was the site of a large anti-war rally on the weekend, and the fact that none of the protesters wound up in the grill of my car is a testament to how I’ve mellowed in my old age.
It’s not that I don’t share the general sentiment against an imminent war in Iraq – I just don’t think that anybody has the right to tie up traffic for miles in a self-important quest for expression. Protests of this sort, for any cause, pose a problem for police vehicles, ambulances, fire trucks, parents taking kids to doctors, people taking animals to the vet and TV people trying to make a 3:30 movie. All so a bunch of scruffy young people long on passion but short on perspective can try to capture some retro-60s feeling and try to pick-up loose hippy chicks.
I don’t know what it is about specifically anti-war protesters that sets my teeth on edge – but they do. Maybe it’s because they seem to be against not just this war, but every war, and carry on as if a knee-jerk opposition to military action makes them morally superior to the rest of us living in the real world.
I wonder if they would have demonstrated against our forces in World War Two, determining that engaging in military action was less moral than letting Hitler take over Europe and slaughter ethnic minorities? War is not always the right choice nor always the wrong choice – it depends on the circumstances. Yet I can’t remember a military action that the left hasn’t agitated against.
Or should I say, I can’t remember a western military action that the left hasn’t agitated against. They don’t seem to gather too often to protest the military actions of non-western countries. And they seem to share more sympathies with terrorists than with their victims.
No, this isn’t true of all the left, or all the people who protested on Saturday, but it’s true of enough of them for me to rant about it.
Western anti-war protesters only seem to get a bee in their bonnet on the occasions that the U.S. is involved in a conflict. If these people are so concerned with Iraqi civilians, where were they en masse when Saddam was gassing Iraqis, torturing them and starving them? Where are they every day when countries around the world torture and abuse their own citizens, or make war or terrorism against other countries’ citizens? I‘ll tell you where they are – sipping lattes, scribbling bad poems, sucking on bongs and having a kegger.
So far, I’m not convinced that a war on Iraq is a good idea – but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t be convinced by decent evidence. Sometimes, the only moral choice is to wage war instead of letting injustices continue. Do we have the right to interfere in how sovereign nations treat their own people? Damn right we do. Do we have the resources to address every nation that’s hurting it’s people? Not a chance. So when we do take a risk on deposing a dictator, people concerned with suffering should be glad – not scribbling placards at Starbucks.
The real debate should be over the best way to make life better for Iraqi citizens and the rest of the region, not whether or not it’s right to kick Saddam Hussein’s ass.
When you only have a problem with war, and not with the injustices that can be remedied through military action, the moral high ground can get a bit slippery under your Birkenstocks.
I'm Ed the Sock.
A refreshing Canadian perspective about the war.
More EDitorials
here.