Being pro-peace...

Le centriste

Think of ist as a necessary evil, kinda like going to the dentist. Maybe... but the point is that because someone is pro-peace don't make him pro-Iraq.

Nitron

Michel Prévost wrote: but the point is that because someone is pro-peace don't make him pro-Iraq. :wtf: I never said I did! ;P Here - happy valentines day: :rose: I'm going to bed. :zzz: - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Michael A Barnhart

Well, timing is bad. Yes war is bad but not stopping "real" threats is worse. I know we (the world) do not agree on what a "real" threat is. What irritates me is the very title Pro-Peace and Pro-War. I think that is an over simplification. For example you have a neighbor bully who beats up the other kids all of the time. The kids finally get together go to the police and have him disciplined. Is the police the war mongers or the peace lover? Yes a simplification of itself and the neighborhood formed the police. My point is not being for war (disciplining a rouge state) does not make you Pro-Peace. Any suggestions on a better label? What comes to mind is Pro-Appeasement but that is just as much an error as the first. "I will find a new sig someday."

Le centriste

The problem is one being tagged as pro-Iraq because he/she don't agree with US view of peace (peace by war). Is the police the war mongers or the peace lover? It depends how the police has the bully disciplined.

Michael A Barnhart

Her video was Anti-War. She says she is Pro-Peace and you used that label on the message. She says she is being accused of being Pro-Iraq. I do not know the context and most likely disagree with equating the two as I believe most US would not. I can not prevent everyone from equating the two and yes we have our share of what you call "Red-Necks" that would. This does not mean it is US Propaganda as you state. My response was just being anti-war does not make you by default pro peace. If you do nothing you are not helping peace. Michel Prévost wrote: It depends how the police has the bully disciplined. That is also a truthful observation, but IMO outside of the initial line of discussion. "I will find a new sig someday."

Chris Losinger

Nitron wrote: It seems they are less "pro-peace" than any Americans are... Q: what do the the average Iraqi and the average American have in common? A: they have absolutely nothing to do with the current US/Iraq pre-war. the war is between GWB and Saddam, not me and the Iraqi who lives on the corner of 5th and Jihad. Saddam is the one with (or not, depending who you want to believe) the nasty weapons and GWB is the one who has decided that enforcing certain UN orders is more important than just about anything else in the world right now. pro-peace , pro-war citizens have no input into the process. -c

Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. --Thomas Cardinal Wolsey

Fractals

Megan Forbes

Michel Prévost wrote: ... seems to make you automatically pro-Iraq. Is that american propaganda at work? I found it quite interesting today that there were so many "Free Palestine" posters today. Does being pro-peace have to make you anti-Isreal? Because if that is the case, it must also mean you are pro-muslim, anti-west. Strange connections people subtly try to force upon others.

Throw in a bit of S&M or eye-ball sucking**-Paul Watson on the merits of swearing, sex and obscenities in CP posts** ...they assumed that reasonably intelligent adults would know enough to leave the building if it was burning. Those who did not were, presumably, expendable, and there was less paperwork involved than trying to fire them**-Roger Wright on fire drills at work**

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Nitron wrote: Think of ist as a necessary evil, kinda like going to the dentist. Yes, but what if the dentist wants to pull a tooth out? And the tooth he's pulling is not the one which is aching? A lot of things can go wrong at the dentist.. :rolleyes: Also, before a dentist wants to pull a tooth out of my mouth, I'd really want to know why he wants to do that, and show me the root of the problem, so to speak. :) -- Ihre ganze Unterseite sind gehören uns.

Michael A Barnhart

Megan Forbes wrote: Strange connections people subtly try to force upon others. Good observation. Personaly I find Pro-this and Anti-that to be independant opinions. "I will find a new sig someday."

KaRl

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: What irritates me is the very title Pro-Peace and Pro-War What other choices give GWB? You can only obey him or be an enemy. This attitude doesn't help not to think black and white. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: My point is not being for war (disciplining a rouge state) does not make you Pro-Peace. I think so. If SH tries clearly to block or stop the UN inspections, then I will agree a war is the last resort. I'm for peace for the moment. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Any suggestions on a better label? Interventionists vs Legalists?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Chris Losinger

here's another fun one... Iraq and Iran are sworn enemies. so, a weaker Iraq boosts Iran's stature in the region. all of the pro-war-on-Iraq people must therefore be pro-Iran! -c

Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. --Thomas Cardinal Wolsey

Fractals

Michael A Barnhart

KaЯl wrote: What other choices give GWB? GWB has nothing to do with the label. You can be both you, can be neither. KaЯl wrote: You can only obey him or be an enemy. This attitude doesn't help not to think black and white. I totaly agree GWB is no diplomate and has made some stupid statements. For this line though it does not apply or is mearly a diversion to the topic. KaЯl wrote: I think so. (Ref to Pro-Peace == Anti-War) For agruments sake. So you want no war and support Saddam giving chemical weapons to terrorist so they can be used against cities in the west. By your definition you a pro-peace. I do not think either of us believe that just an example that they are not equal labels. "I will find a new sig someday."

Chris Losinger

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Saddam giving chemical weapons to terrorist prove it. the entire war-right-now argument rests on that premise - and nobody has shown even the slightest hint that there is a link. -c

Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. --Thomas Cardinal Wolsey

Fractals

Michael A Barnhart

Sorry for the dual reply. I hit something and it posted in the middle of my reply. KaЯl wrote: If SH tries clearly to block or stop the UN inspections, then I will agree a war is the last resort. I have no problem with that. Now define clearly? For 12 years he has been blocking and playing games with the inspectors. In Blix's last report he says progress can be quickly made "if Iraq begins to xxxxx not just follow the proccess?" And even that is only when action is begining to be mounted. I just want something other than an endless loop. I hope that can be understood. KaЯl wrote: I'm for peace for the moment. So am I. However IMO we do not have peace now and only going on with inspections when I have heard more than one inspector (I guess it could have been the same one on multiple occations) say we will not find what Saddam does not want us to. Gives me the feeling that the current path does not lead to peace (edited). Now have we taken all options. I do not think so. Have we seriously talked via the UN to a joint group of Arab nations and let them from a coalition for a transitional government? that may be a start. "I will find a new sig someday."

brianwelsch

I see that someone could be both pro-peace and pro-Iraq. I also see that someone who is pro-Iraq could easily be anti-Saddam. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security

Michael A Barnhart

Chris, Once again you totaly discredit yourself by taking a partial sentance totaly out of context. Go read the whole thing. "I will find a new sig someday."

KaRl

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: So you want no war and support Saddam giving chemical weapons to terrorist so they can be used against cities in the west :wtf:! Where are you read that?! I would like to see the destruction of any chemical and biological weapons, with also the ones western nations have. What an hypocrisy to ask for weapon destruction when having the biggest arsenal of WMD in the world.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Michael A Barnhart

Please read the whole thing and not just part. I said "I do not think either of us believe that just an example that they are not equal labels." EGAD X| "I will find a new sig someday."

Le centriste

Good observation. And I am myself definitely anti-Saddam.

KaRl

As long as the inspectors will say they can do their jobs, no war is needed, whatever might say the State Department. The US behaviour in foreign policy since the elections of the last president speaks against the current administration, as for its unilateral approach as its contempt againt the rest of the World. If the inspectors need 6 months, or 1 year, where's the problem? Under a constant monitoring SH is not able to develop WMD. So why would it be urgent to strike now, if WMD are the real concerns? Iraq has for the moment accepted conditions from the UN no country has ever accepted. Why would you the US people say if inspectors wanted to survey the WMD production in US, and ask for flights of spy splanes over the US territory ? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Have we seriously talked via the UN to a joint group of Arab nations and let them from a coalition for a transitional government? Do you want that once again western nations make another government in a foreign country? It's the best way to fµck all up. Iraquis are the only ones to decide which government they want.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop