# War Criminal Demonstration



## I_am_John_Galt (16 Nov 2004)

In our media's seemingly unending quest to piss-off the US in every way possible?  I hope they don't read our papers or watch the CBC ...



> Nov. 16, 2004. 01:00 AM
> Should Canada indict Bush?
> 
> THOMAS WALKOM
> ...



http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1100517502971&call_pageid=970599109774


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2004)

Maybe we should charge this guy for having his head up his ass.

I recognize that this article is a attempt at sarcasm to reveal hypocrisy, but it really reflects his failure to understand reality.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (16 Nov 2004)

He's the same dipsh*t that _unfavourably _compared Bush to Hitler earlier this year:
 http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1073908426223&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Nov 2004)

I'd like to volunteer this f'n prick for a journalistic sightseeing tour of Sunni Iraq, let him enjoy the taste of his own testicles before offering him the opportunity to write an apology, retraction and follow-up on who the real bad guys are.



Matthew.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Nov 2004)

The Nuremburg trials were held to deal with a regime which overran most of Europe, ran genocidal death camps, engaged in ethnic cleansing, used civilians and PoW as slave labour...

When the US achieves that scope of institutionalized depravity, ring the bell and we'll hold trials.  Until then, feel free to smack yourself repeatedly in the face with a hammer until some common sense returns.


----------



## Gunnar (17 Nov 2004)

There's a lot of people who compare the US and or US leaders to Nazi Germany or Hitler these days.  This shows you how far out of touch people are with the horrors of that particular war.  I would suggest that the next time somebody makes one of these stupid comments in the press that they be forced to spend some time touring the camps...or if too lazy to do that, then at least go to www.remember.org

As Brad said, when the US reaches that level of institutionalized depravity, feel free to ring the bell.  Until then, get your proctologist on the horn and see if he can find your head.


----------



## pbi (18 Nov 2004)

The author is right!

His insightful piece is a clarion call to humanity, a banner on the barricades in the front-line struggle against the hegemonic militarist Bush and his warmongering cronies as they wage imperialist aggression against our fellow world citizens in Fallujah and other martyred places in the Middle East! The visit of the rabid hegemon oppressor to the cringingingly servile "Government" in Ottawa will be the rallying signal to all progressive Canadians: students, teachers, workers, cadres, the homeless, the unwaged, the career-free and all others in the advance guard of social and world consciousness! Forward! Smash the Militarist Power Structure! Empower self-actualization of internalized realities! Think Globally! Act Locally Smash the Globalizing Exploiters!

(_Pant Pant Pant_). Ho ho. That was fun, wasn't it? > 

Cheers.


----------



## q_1966 (26 Nov 2004)

Just Advertising and supporting

Demonstration against George Bush  

U.S. President George W. Bush will be in Canada, November 30, 2004
Demonstrations against Bush will be held across the country, on the grounds that he is a war criminal and is responsible for 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq and that he and his administration are in continuing violation of Geneva Convention accords by holding prisoners in torture like conditions at Guantanamo bay.

In Salmon Arm There will be a demonstration on Tuesday Nov. 30 from 12:15 to 12:45 at Alexander St. and TCH

If you belive that Bush is a war criminal
Find out if its happening in your town and show up, or organize one to protest it


----------



## scm77 (26 Nov 2004)

How come you didn't protest for the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam killed?


----------



## white (26 Nov 2004)

scm77 said:
			
		

> How come you didn't protest for the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam killed?


and tortured?


----------



## patt (26 Nov 2004)

too many damn hippies in this country...


----------



## Torlyn (26 Nov 2004)

Here's an idea...  If you really want to go protest, hop on a flight to Iraq.  Tie yourself to a building holding insurgents inside in Fallujah, wear your little white flag, and protest to your heart's content.  Have you ever actually spoken to an Iraqi citizen who fled that country, to get away from Saddham?  Try it.  Ask what their living conditions were like.  THEN decide if you still think Bush is the bigger war criminal...

T

Fallujah delenda est


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (26 Nov 2004)

> How come you didn't protest for the hundreds of thousands of people Saddam killed?



Maybe he did, maybe he didn't...who are you to say?



> Too many damn hippies in this country...



That's more of a personal attack, than anything...
I am to hippie as you are to power-starved warmonger.



> Here's an idea...   If you really want to go protest, hop on a flight to Iraq.   Tie yourself to a building holding insurgents inside in Fallujah, wear your little white flag, and protest to your heart's content.   Have you ever actually spoken to an Iraqi citizen who fled that country, to get away from Saddham?   Try it.   Ask what their living conditions were like.   THEN decide if you still think Bush is the bigger war criminal...



Have you spoken to the families of the innocent civilians who have died as a result of the war? Try it. Ask what their living conditions are like under the occupation of American forces.

It is difficult to ever fully comprehend the insurmountable violence and oppression inflicted upon the Iraqi poulace under Saddam Hussein. In making that statement, however, are you trying to justify U.S. actions through the vicious actions of another state?


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

MissMolsonIndy said:
			
		

> Have you spoken to the families of the innocent civilians who have died as a result of the war? Try it. Ask what their living conditions are like under the occupation of American forces.
> Are you trying to justify U.S. actions through the vicious actions of another state?



I like your logic.  While we're at it, let's go talk to the people of Europe and ask them what their living conditions were like while that evil alliance of allys was fighting the good and benevolent Nazi's.  Clearly we should have stayed out of WW2, look how much damage we caused by fighting!


----------



## Torlyn (26 Nov 2004)

MissMolsonIndy said:
			
		

> Are you trying to justify U.S. actions through the vicious actions of another?



No ma'am.  What I'm trying to point out is that too many people are more than willing to hop on the protest wagon without seeing both sides.  He's obviously seen the side that the media have painted, but hasn't looked much deeper.  It was a sarcastic response.  

Now, if we go under the assumption that the American conflict falls under the geneva convention (Part i, Article i, para 2) then the actions that bush has taken in regards to the treatment of Iraqi citizens both in Iraq and detained in Guantanimo Bay are not war crimes.  Look at the firebombing of Dresdin,(sp?) or Hiroshima & Nagasaki.  A hell of a lot more civilians were killed then, but no one from the allied side faced war crime tribunals.

Back to the prisoners in Cuba, well, POW's can be held until the end of hostilities, right?  As of yet, hostilities sure haven't ended.  As for "torture-like" conditions, I'll believe it when I see it.  The Americans are way to aware of the image that they must present, and I doubt would treat those prisoners any worse than the G.C. allowed.  I believe this because they know the shit storm that would occur were they caught, and, as we say in Abu Grabe, you always get caught.  Thus, their detention isn't illegal.  If there is information out there contrary to this, I would be more than willing to consider it.

As for Abu Grabe (sp?) Bush cannot be liable unless he specifically ordered said treatment, right?  So why would anyone protest to get GB indicted?  I can see (and will the defend the rights of) anyone to protest the present action in Iraq, but I cannot stand and watch people attack someone when they know nothing about it.  Hence the tone of my response to SP.

As for speaking to both sides, yes, I have.  It's tough to find any Iraqis who fled the Saddham regime who haven't lost family members in either Gulf War I or Gulf War II.  As for living conditions, the impression I got that putting up with a few hardships (no, I'm not belittling the conditions..  Having to desalinate your own water, no electricity, heat, etc isn't easy, nor do I try to imply that it is) was worth not living under Saddham.  I'll ask directly, and get back to you.

Hope that clears things up some.

T

Fallujah delenda est


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (26 Nov 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I like your logic.   While we're at it, let's go talk to the people of Europe and ask them what their living conditions were like while that evil alliance of allys was fighting the good and benevolent Nazi's.   Clearly we should have stayed out of WW2, look how much damage we caused by fighting!



My sarcasm detector is off the charts.

If you reread my response, you'll realize that I never made comment on whether or not American troops should have stayed out of the war, or not.

Unless I read it incorrectly, Torlyn's statement is attempting to justify the entire concept of the war, including the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, on the basis that the Iraqi people were oppressed and were subjected to vicious ruling prior to the outbreak of war. The oppression/violence has not been removed, it has merely taken on a different form. Whether that is a positive, negative, or overlapping thing...you decide.


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Nov 2004)

MissMolsonIndy [ ] et al.. 
I, like so many others, have enjoyed the perspective and debates that you bring to this web site, however I question the appropriateness of using this web site as a forum to solicit support and organize demonstrations such as those which are the subject of this thread. I suppose there are other web sites in which you may do so, and I sincerely believe that the sort of activity discussed by all parties in this thread simply cheapens and tarnishes the reputation of a darn good site, not to mention the esteem and regard held for some of the posters herein. [MMI, that means you.] 

That especially goes for you Shawn Papke. Keep it up, and in a metaphoric sense you will be kicking your lunch pail down the road.


----------



## Torlyn (26 Nov 2004)

MissMolsonIndy said:
			
		

> Unless I read it incorrectly, Torlyn's statement is attempting to justify the entire concept of the war, including the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, on the basis that they were oppressed and were subjected to vicious ruling prior to the outbreak of war.



Hmm...  I think I cleared that up in my last post...  However, weren't you trying to carry a juxtaposition by stating "Have you spoken to the families of the innocent civilians who have died as a result of the war? Try it. Ask what their living conditions are like under the occupation of American forces."  The impression I get from that is you denounce the war using the same flawed logic that you say I used in "attempting to justify the entire concept of the war"...

On a side note, I would have *LOVED* to be in a polysci class with you...  I can see the heated discussions already.  

Respectfully,

T

Fallujah delenda est


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (26 Nov 2004)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> MissMolsonIndy [ ] et al..
> I, like so many others, have enjoyed the perspective and debates that you bring to this web site, however I question the appropriateness of using this web site as a forum to solicit support and organize demonstrations such as those which are the subject of this thread. I suppose there are other web sites in which you may do so, and I sincerely believe that the sort of activity discussed by all parties in this thread simply cheapens and tarnishes the reputation of a darn good site, not to mention the esteem and regard held for some of the posters herein. [MMI, that means you.]
> 
> That especially goes for you Shawn Papke. Keep it up, and in a metaphoric sense you will be kicking your lunch pail down the road.



In which of my posts have I attempted to solicit support, and furthermore, organize demonstrations? Where have I ever made the implication that I intend to join the Anti-War demonstrations? I was simply challenging the logic on this forum. If that makes me a "leftist hippie," then label me as such.

As far as the original post goes, Shawn was showing support, and informing others (who may not have known already) about a particular demonstration that clearly wasn't well-taken to in this arena. I don't think that there is anything in his original post that reveals his "imposition" of values and ideals on others...


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

MissMolsonIndy said:
			
		

> Unless I read it incorrectly, Torlyn's statement is attempting to justify the entire concept of the war, including the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, on the basis that the Iraqi people were oppressed and were subjected to vicious ruling prior to the outbreak of war. The oppression/violence has not been removed, it has merely taken on a different form.  Whether that is a positive, negative, or overlapping thing...you decide.



That's the point.  Do you seriously beleive that during WW2, the oppresion and violence which, for example, the french people were suffering under the Nazis was removed the day that allied soldiers stepped foot in the country?  Or do you suppose it might have taken a few years for things to get better?  The fact that people are still dying is obviously a negative thing, but it's unavoidable.


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (26 Nov 2004)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Hmm...   I think I cleared that up in my last post...   However, weren't you trying to carry a juxtaposition by stating "Have you spoken to the families of the innocent civilians who have died as a result of the war? Try it. Ask what their living conditions are like under the occupation of American forces."   The impression I get from that is you denounce the war using the same flawed logic that you say I used in "attempting to justify the entire concept of the war"...
> 
> On a side note, I would have *LOVED* to be in a polysci class with you...   I can see the heated discussions already.



What I presented to you was by no means logic, in fact, it was to show you that your statement could have easily been flipped around, and it still would have constituted unreasonable grounds upon which to base an argument. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate product of war, and have been throughout history.

What I'm getting at is this: you can't use the suffering of a population to justify further oppression.

Torlyn: I keep my debates relatively civil, haha, but if you wanna giv'er one night over a few drinks, I'm game.


----------



## Torlyn (26 Nov 2004)

MissMolsonIndy said:
			
		

> What I'm getting at is this: you can't use the suffering of a population to justify further oppression.



Very true, you can't justify futher oppression through the suffering of a population...  I think where this gets touchy is the varying opinions people have on whether or not the current American occupation of Iraq and the allied occupation of Afghanistan constitutes oppression.  However, that's more of an opinion thing, and doesn't have much to do with this thread.  

whiskey 601 Did bring up an interesting point...  We've hijacked this thread quite nicely.    However, I do think we got a few relevant things discussed...   ;D

T


----------



## winchable (26 Nov 2004)

There is a thread already opened for discussing the war in Iraq I believe,
If not, feel free to start another just *make sure there isn't one already open* as far as this thread is concerned...

They're doing the same thing in Halifax though it seems they've decided Bush is guilty already, so I don't see the point behind the trial.
Plans are to cuff "Him" and take "him to the US consulate at Purdy's Wharf.
Personally (and this is a personal opinon and you're all welcome to it) modern protestings attempts to rekindle the furour and justness of older protests and revolutions lacks the *genuine* feeling behind the movements.
I'm for change, for progression, for revolutions but they are useless vehicles that do nothing more than stop traffic if the people involved do not give themselves to their cause and believe in it truly and deeply.
For most I have met (and it is a significant number believe me) their version of change, progression and revolution involves getting blazed and screaming at any old white man who comes out of a government building.

I have encountered too many Nike wearing, Gap Rocking protestors at Dalhousie (Infanteer has a good anecdote about one too I believe) who have tried to convince me that exploitation of oil producing countries and the war in Iraq is wrong.
For every few who truly give their hearts and minds to it (which I respect) there are hundreds more who jump on the bandwagon faster than Tampa Bay fans did last year....

As for the war criminal trial...The organisers have convicted Bush already as I see it, which kind of ruins the ending for me, so I think I'll pass.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Nov 2004)

Missmolsonindy.......bad netiquette to change the wording after someone responds to the question, shame,shame. :-[


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Nov 2004)

MMI, that's a crock and you know it. As I see things, a post advocating protests against a visiting foreign leader was broadcast to the public on this site. Have you ever seen that on this site before?   

Right away, the topic is assailed from the other side of the spectrum, and without characterizing the substance of all of the posts, the thread goes down hill right from the start. Instead of ignoring the thread, you weigh in and literally throw gas on the fire by posting into the thread. I am going to suggest to you that you had other options. One of those options might have been to open a new thread on the efficacy of such political demonstrations. But, by failing or omitting to do so, you either (1) recklessly cast your lot into the thread, and thereby created the appearance of supporting an objectionable post, or (2) were wilfully blind of the resulting appearance of your post ,   even if you personally don't advocate the sort of things which SP did.   It was not until my last post that the appearance was put to rest, so thank you. That does not detract from the quality of the discourse that has subsequently arisen between you and Torlyn, which by the way is excellent.    

And, I know that you are aware of the alternative options, because I've seen you select the ground upon which you choose to stand, and this particular thread is beyond being out of character for you.

Cheers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Nov 2004)

>It is difficult to ever fully comprehend the insurmountable violence and oppression inflicted upon the Iraqi poulace under Saddam Hussein. In making that statement, however, are you trying to justify U.S. actions through the vicious actions of another state?

Short lesson in the roles of diplomacy and war as foreign policy levers in matters of concern for humanitarian crises.

(Diplomatic phase begins.)
One or more concerned nations to Dictator: "Treat your people better."
Dictator: "Make me."
(Sanctions, embargoes, resolutions, name-calling, entreaties, etc.)
Dictator: "Is that all you got?"
(Diplomatic phase ends. Two choices: make Dictator comply, or leave people to their fate.  Pick one.)


Any questions?


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (26 Nov 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Missmolsonindy.......bad netiquette to change the wording after someone responds to the question, shame,shame. :-[



I'm sorry, Bruce, I didn't do it on purpose.

I edited my post several times over, and only noticed after I had saved it that a response followed.


----------



## Storm (26 Nov 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I like your logic.   While we're at it, let's go talk to the people of Europe and ask them what their living conditions were like while that evil alliance of allys was fighting the good and benevolent Nazi's.   Clearly we should have stayed out of WW2, look how much damage we caused by fighting!



Damn, you beat me to it.   ;D


As for the concern of using a board such as this to mention demonstrations, I don't see that as being out of line, provided it's done in a civil manner. Advising of a legal protest and encouraging those who believe in it's statement to participate is no different than encouraging someone to write to their MP, or to the local paper. All those actions are legal methods of expressing your opinion last time I checked. Is this the best place to advertise a protest about Iraq? Definitely not, but it's not out of line either.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Nov 2004)

> Advising of a legal protest and encouraging those who believe in it's statement to participate is no different than encouraging someone to write to their MP, or to the local paper. All those actions are legal methods of expressing your opinion last time I checked. Is this the best place to advertise a protest about Iraq? Definitely not, but it's not out of line either.



I have issue with people who come here to debate politics, and little else. This is Army.ca - a site for military people, ex-military people, and those interested in joining or simply supporting the military. The Politics forums are here, on this military-oriented site, as a service to people who already "belong" here (for lack of a better term). For people with little to offer to military discussions, that like to debate politics, why don't you go to political sites???


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Nov 2004)

"Belong", eh?


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Nov 2004)

As I said - not the best term, but the best one I could think of


----------



## Slim (26 Nov 2004)

I don't think that using this forum to recruit for an anti-Bush protest is correct...Regardless of personal feelings on the matter. As soldiers (and ex soldiers) we are, to a degree, bound to be loyal to the Country and her govt. (even if they don't deserve it most of the time).

Preaching civil disobedience is not loyalty and the majority of protesters don't really understand the issue and don't really know the truth of the matter to begin with anyway.

Shawn

If you persist on recruiting here in this thread (or the forum in general) I will request that the mods lock this and any subsequent threads you make. And I'm sure I won't be alone in doing that.

Slim


----------



## Storm (26 Nov 2004)

Sorry Muskrat, I apologize for my error. I had been under the impression that the political forum existed for open discussion of politics between people of various political beliefs. Thank you for clarifying that they actually exist for us to pat ourselves on the back for the fact that our opinions are so infallable, free from the bothersome arguments of those who believe otherwise. :

Sarcasm aside, I also think the whole premise of the anti-Bush protest is silly, and that soliciting support here is a waste of effort. However, based on the quality of discussion often found on these forums I would expect some well aimed arguments in opposition to this rather than "you're being dumb, you don't belong here, now go away"



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I have issue with people who come here to debate politics, and little else. This is Army.ca - a site for military people, ex-military people, and those interested in joining or simply supporting the military. The Politics forums are here, on this military-oriented site, as a service to people who already "belong" here (for lack of a better term). For people with little to offer to military discussions, that like to debate politics, why don't you go to political sites???



The person who initiated this thread, according to their profile (which is reasonably informative, indicating that this is not a one-topic troll), is in army cadets. I doubt he would be in cadets if he didn't have at least some interest in the military, and I don't see how you can say he doesn't "belong" here given the involvement of the CF with the cadet program. I must say I'm disappointed in your dismissive attitude.


----------



## camochick (26 Nov 2004)

Shawn Papke said:
			
		

> Just Advertising and supporting
> 
> Demonstration against George Bush
> 
> ...




I really dont see where this guy is preaching. I mean he says that "if you believe bush is a war criminal". NO where in this post does this person go off about how everyone should go to this protest. This person is just informing people of what is going on. These protest have the potentila to be a big issue on the 30th. Are we not allowed to talk about anything slightly controversial on here. It seems like there is alot of censorship and people getting threatened with being banned and such. Are these forums not to voice ones opinion on things. I agree that an army forum is not the best place for this, but it seems like there is alot of silencing of certain people around here, and this place is turning into some sort of elitist club.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Nov 2004)

There are members who come here and rarely step outside of the political forum. That is what I have issue with. This isn't politics.ca That was my point.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Nov 2004)

> It seems like there is alot of censorship and people getting threatened with being banned and such. Are these forums not to voice ones opinion on things. I agree that an army forum is not the best place for this, but it seems like there is alot of silencing of certain people around here, and this place is turning into some sort of elitist club.




Examples, please?


 ???


----------



## camochick (26 Nov 2004)

Do I really have to go through all the forums and find places where people say things like, i will ifnorm someone of this, or that. All I am saying is that I dont think this guy was wrong in posting this becayse he is not promoting this, he just posted something about a protest. He never said anyone should attend. If you want me to go through all th post i will  :-*


----------



## Storm (26 Nov 2004)

camochick said:
			
		

> It seems like there is alot of censorship and people getting threatened with being banned and such. Are these forums not to voice ones opinion on things. I agree that an army forum is not the best place for this, but it seems like there is alot of silencing of certain people around here, and this place is turning into some sort of elitist club.



I don't follow. If cersorship was running rampant, I'd be gone by now for disagreeing with one of the all-powerful mods. People who troll and bring down the level of debate here are dealt with swiftly and appropriately from what I've seen. There is a fair warning system that is used before anyone is banned. While there may be an initial warning here or there that may seem questionable to you, I highly doubt anyone who doesn't truly deserve it will get the boot. 

Remember that, in the end, these forums are owned privately by an individual, who gets to set the rules and hand pick mods to help him run things. It just happens that in this dictatorship the dictator is good.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Nov 2004)

Thank you storm   ;D


----------



## camochick (26 Nov 2004)

Ok . You make a good point.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Nov 2004)

MMI,
Honest mistake, then no problem....I retrieve my "shame-shames".

Now, just to make everyone aware, I slightly disagree with Muskrat on this one, as long as one is not simply " trolling" then lets hear it.
But to put some minds at ease Mr. Bobbitt did not pick "Mods" according to their views and to be truthful we do butt heads regularly however, just like professional soldiers must learn to do, we present a united front.
[and that grasshopper, is one of the most important things you WILL learn in your future]


----------



## winchable (27 Nov 2004)

I will let this thread open until the staff disagrees completely, at which point I will cut it, because no thread is worth the unity of the staff.

As I see it this is a discussion based on the civil rights which we live and die for, and if you think about, as military members have very little else to do in our careers.

So I say, have at it folks, as long as it's somehow related to this particular protest.
Otherwise, open your own threads. It's your right!


----------



## Goober (27 Nov 2004)

On the topic of the protesters (all over the country) protesting against Bush, I think thats fine, and I respect anyone who stands up for what they believe in, but I think Che made an excellent point about some of these protesters...



			
				Che said:
			
		

> ...
> They're doing the same thing in Halifax though it seems they've decided Bush is guilty already, so I don't see the point behind the trial.
> Plans are to cuff "Him" and take "him to the US consulate at Purdy's Wharf.
> ...



Any respect I had for such a protester goes right out the window.

Behind any "crime" there is a motive. Putting it simply, isn't it the motive that determines whether or not the act is a crime? As a cheap example, you shoot somebody and kill them. Are you a criminal? Depends on the motive, you could have done it in self defence, or you could have been been aiming for the guy with the knife behind him, or you could have planed it for weeks.

The motive behind Bush invading Iraq was to end Saddam's tyranny. Is that a crime?

Some reports say as many as 100,000 civilians have been killed since the US invaded Iraq. War is not nice. A few years of war and 100,000 civilian deaths is worth the price of a country's freedom wouldn't you think? After all, if Saddam was not removed then his civilian death count of 300,000 (reported) would still be rising, and wouldn't stop rising. Is this motive enough?

With 300,000 civilians killed by a tyrant dictator, isn't turning a blind eye, or not doing anything about it a crime?


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Nov 2004)

> I slightly disagree with Muskrat on this one



Ahh Bruce - there is a first time for everything   

I was simply expressing a personal pet peeve - not a "Moderator one". There are a few people here who, in my perception, offer little to military discussions, but wax poetic in the political ones. This is a military board, so it strikes me strange - that's all. Like someone who joins the board, and 95% of their posts are about...ummmm....baseball card collecting. Now if a thread is about the hobbies of people who joined the board - and someone wants to talk about baseball cards, great. If that's all they want to talk about, though - why aren't they hanging around in the "baseball card collecting" sites?   ???

Anyway, like I said - a personal peeve - as long as the conversations stay in the guidelines, and Bruce agrees with me *most* of the time, the thread is in no danger from me, as a Mod. Carry on, folks - I'll quit butting in now.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Nov 2004)

I have to agree with you, my friend, your always right, darn it! ;D


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2004)

> I was simply expressing a personal pet peeve - not a "Moderator one". There are a few people here who, in my perception, offer little to military discussions, but wax poetic in the political ones. This is a military board, so it strikes me strange - that's all.



"War is the continuation of Politics by other means". If military action is not directed towards achieving some political objective, then it is really brigandage on a large scale, and indeed most of the history of war from the Iliad on is really the story of rape, pillage and plunder on a large or even epic scale (Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Adolf Hitler and Stalin come to mind). Indeed, military historian Martin Van Crevald makes the point that until the birth of the modern Nation-State in the mid 1600s, the very concept of war as we understand it did not exist (although I would be inclined to debate that proposition).

My main problem with the "leftist" position is they still seem to focus only on the undeniable collateral effects of war, without looking at the political objectives the war is meant to achieve. This allows people to make silly statements like "Bush is a war criminal" with a straight face, since for the most part, they really have no idea what they are talking about. If 100,000 people have been killed in Iraq due to the actions of the coalition (BTW, this was a speculation, not an informed casualty count, see the "100,000 and counting" thread), then a very high price has been paid, but the political ends; removing an aggressive and destabilizing regime, breaking support links to various terrorist organizations, preventing the resumption of WMD research and development, and saving the citizens of the country from further oppression; would seem to make taking action worthwhile. Since the real casualty count is much lower, then the price is acceptable for what has been achieved, and since the conventional laws of war have been followed quite scrupulously by the coallition, then there is no case for stating the President is a "war criminal".

The other problem with most "leftists" is even when confronted by factual evidence, they will simply dismiss you with some insult and carry on as if you had never spoken. The only thing for "ignorent redneck cracker bible-thumping baby-killers" to do is continue to press on, find the facts and publish them wherever you can. It can't hurt, and you might help someone somewhere.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Nov 2004)

Well, if the initial post is appropriate to the Forums (and I'm not convinced that it is), maybe some advertizing for the alternative is appropriate, too:

www.protestwarrior.com
"Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism & Communism, War has NEVER solved anything"

(Under "HQ" >> "Chapters" there's an Ottawa chapter, but I don't see one for Halifax)


-Out


----------



## 48Highlander (29 Nov 2004)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Well, if the initial post is appropriate to the Forums (and I'm not convinced that it is), maybe some advertizing for the alternative is appropriate, too:
> www.protestwarrior.com



I love that site  ;D  Downloaded all of their videos and then showed 'em to some of my more moderate leftie friends.  You should have seen the looks on their faces.


----------



## q_1966 (29 Nov 2004)

All im doing is telling that there is a protest, if you belive in it, speak out on tuesday.

- Shawn


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2004)

The template of a protest is predictable.

Some of the attendees will meander in approximately serpentine patterns which would make a snake puke while waving their arms and call it "dance".

Others will resurrect a memory of beating spoons on pots as a 2-1/2 year-old and fancy the resulting arhythmic percussion and cacophony to be "music".

Some will recite pointless rants which have made to awkwardly rhyme as "poetry".

If the "poetry" is approximately coincident with the "music" it will be styled "song".

A few of the onlookers with memories of their own self-embarrassment will feign enthusiasm for these displays.  The rest will applaud politely, or try not to look involved.

Spokespeople will denounce the target of the protest, and the crowd will re-use slogans thirty or more years old, imagining themselves to be clever.

The next day all the participants will email their friends to regale them with triumphant tales of the celebration.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (30 Nov 2004)

Brad, that's an awesome post!

Shawn: "Me, too!"


----------



## Slim (30 Nov 2004)

Brad Good post!

I must say that these clowns are no more together and organized than when I was operating against them several years ago. I really tried (at the time) to approach the whole thing with an open mind to see if, just maybe, there was a point to all this.

Conclusion: Nope, no point at all. Trying to understand them is pretty much a complete waste of time.

There was a core group of agitators who travel around the continent stirring trouble and whipping (or trying to) everyone into a frenzy. Everyone else who attend do so out of a set of vague fears that they should do SOMETHING but are not quite sure what.

Allot of their funding is actually done by groups who are very anarchistic by nature, and who's goals include the abolishment of our society, organized religion, any military and policing apparatus...The list goes on. Who's funding them is anyone's guess...! 

The whole thing kind of sickens me actually. These "professional" protesters take the names of all the good people and drag them right through the mud, they delude people into believing untruths that seem to suite the pros at the time and they threaten violence to anyone who does not agree. 

It doesn't always work out for them either as at one protest I worked (undercover) I observed one "professional" protester knock a bunch of mailboxes and newspaper boxes down in the financial district in Toronto. His actions were promptly countered by another group of "local" protesters who came right along behind and set them all back up again, ignoring the threats of violence from the first one!

Sometimes I think half the reason that I do what I do for a living is to make sure (or at least help make sure) that everyone is allowed to live peace as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

For those of you who think that Iraq doesn't want the US there to get rid of these AQ clowns, go walk down the main street in Bagdad and see what happens. Believe me when I say that they are plenty glad to have gotten rid of someone who tortures, rapes and robs them.

Makes you wonder what kind of people think that Saddam should be put *BACK* in power?!

My 2 cents 

Slim


----------



## q_1966 (1 Dec 2004)

Good Post, Slim

I suppose you could be right on that one, but i havent heard the iraqi civilian side of the story, shouldnt they be showing that perspective a bit more in the news,

- Shawn


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2004)

Consider that Dan Rather's Producer had been working on the "Bush Air National Guard" story for* five years*, but the best they could do was some documents of dubious authenticity (which even non expert eyes in the "Blogosphere" recognized as Microsoft Word format [wow, that Bill Gates can even travel in time!]). 

Consider also that John Kerry's released military documents have certain allusions to the Senator being dishonourably discharged from the Navy, and there are hundreds of documents that were never released by Kerry. How many news organizations were (or are) working on that story?

The simple fact of the matter is that Iraqi citizens building prosperous lives is exactly contrary to the "message" that the war was wrong, etc. etc. It would take a very bold member of the "Mainstream Media" to broadcast the story, and the resulting sh**storm would probably end that producers and reporter's career.

For a closer to home example, for many years during the Mike Harris government here in Ontario, the Walkerton water tragedy (where eight people died from drinking contaminated water from the municipal system) was always trotted out as a direct consequence of his policies. At the inquiry, it was discovered the illegal well was drilled in 1975, and various missives from the Ministry of the Environment were ignored during the time that Bill Davis, David Peterson and Bob Rea were premier. Now that the perpetrators (the Kobel brothers, who managed the municipal supply all those years) have been found guilty and are up for sentencing, where are all the apologies to Mr Harris?

I'm afraid we will have to did up the information ourselves. Fortunately, the Internet makes this easier than at any time in history, all you need is a properly sceptical attitude (BS filter) and the willingness to do the work yourself.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> and the willingness to do the work yourself.



What? The government doesn't do the work? The revolution will take care of that ....


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (7 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> My main problem with the "leftist" position is they still seem to focus only on the undeniable collateral effects of war, without looking at the political objectives the war is meant to achieve. This allows people to make silly statements like "Bush is a war criminal" with a straight face, since for the most part, they really have no idea what they are talking about. If 100,000 people have been killed in Iraq due to the actions of the coalition (BTW, this was a speculation, not an informed casualty count, see the "100,000 and counting" thread), then a very high price has been paid, but the political ends; removing an aggressive and destabilizing regime, breaking support links to various terrorist organizations, preventing the resumption of WMD research and development, and saving the citizens of the country from further oppression; would seem to make taking action worthwhile. Since the real casualty count is much lower, then the price is acceptable for what has been achieved, and since the conventional laws of war have been followed quite scrupulously by the coallition, then there is no case for stating the President is a "war criminal".
> 
> The other problem with most "leftists" is even when confronted by factual evidence, they will simply dismiss you with some insult and carry on as if you had never spoken. The only thing for "ignorent redneck cracker bible-thumping baby-killers" to do is continue to press on, find the facts and publish them wherever you can. It can't hurt, and you might help someone somewhere.



Do you mind if I steal that? I will leave you anonymous.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2004)

Steal? A person of gentle breeding NEVER steals!. They may acquire, however.

Before you acquire this quote, may I ask in what context it will be used?


----------



## Dogboy (10 Dec 2004)

OK ill wade in hear 


1 the war on Iraqi was for several resons no-mater who  you talk to (hey your going to kill a few 1000 people you need a few resons)


no-mater who Saddam was or what he did. their are worse people in the world in power right now so why do we not invade them?

why was Saddam our friend when he was killing those people on his own? better yet why did we give him weapons to do it ?


the UN says the war was wrong and condemned it 
the UN was set up to help prevent just this from happening (one contry invading another without provocation )


Even if BIG IF  Bush was guilty of war crimes (i don't give him that much cred.)
the USA dose not recognise the international human rights courts and will not follow its laws or rulings


----------



## Infanteer (10 Dec 2004)

As much as I tried to delve into your poorly written post, I still could not divine a point....


----------



## Dogboy (10 Dec 2004)

my mane point is that the war even if it is a good thing (hey freedom is good )
why do we not do it for every murderous despot ?
and and if the war was wrong who's going to do anything about it ?

were damed if we do damed if we don't


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2004)

Infanteer,

I'm trying to handle him in a couple of other threads. I'll let you deal with him here. Have fun. :


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (10 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Steal? A person of gentle breeding NEVER steals!. They may acquire, however.
> 
> Before you acquire this quote, may I ask in what context it will be used?



Absolutely. My paper touches on the dismissal of evidence, fact or information that counters the norm by means of personalizing one's stance. I.e., those who oppose White House policies in regards to the war have been often labelled "unpatriotic", "anti-American", and in extreme cases "traitors." The story unfolds both ways...

Your post touches on this aspect, and I would like to use it...

If that is okay with you, of course. Let me know, army boy.

Lindsay


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2004)

You may use it, but I will offer a caveat, which I hope you will also include. In an Internet thread, things are condensed a great deal. I take the time to look at lots of evidence, but it takes a ling time to record and digest, and of course replying with the 10 year fiancial reports from Haliburton (for example) is very time consuming and difficult to do with limited bandwidth. This means that you may dismiss my views as being "contrary to the norm", while if peole took the time to do the origional reserch, they might be coming to rather different conclusions then "George Bush is a War Criminal", or "BMD is weaponizing space" to use two rather notorious examples.

Your proposed paper could also include the rather interesting observation about how information can be made to dissapear on the left:  During the 1990's all the world's intelligence agencies were convinced about the reality of the WMD program in Iraq, and past evidence of Iraqi use in the Iran Iraq war, and against Kurdish civillians in Iraq were a good predictor of how Saddam Hussein would behave with new stocks of WMD. IF you peruse the records of the US Senate, you will even see speeches by Senator John Edwards warning of the immanent danger to the United States that Saddam's weapns programs posed. Somehow this has all gone down the memory hole and all we hear now is "George Bush lied".


----------



## Dogboy (10 Dec 2004)

well in a sense GW did not lie 

Iraqi had WMD years ago heck the west sold them to Iraqi (thats why we know whet they had we have records )

But they had them all dismantled and destroyed and cleared by the UN 
OK not all 100% but 98% and the 2% not found where reasonably assumed to be destroyed (couldn't find the cereal numbers but found the scrap)


----------



## RCA (10 Dec 2004)

All wars will have their protesters. The turn the other cheek crowd. So be it. Calling them "leftists". I don't know. The extreme left ain't exactly peacable. And the Anarchists, well I would think they belong to the extreme right.

Should Saddam been removed unilaterally by the US. His been gone is a good thing, but it has open a can of worms, and started a new US forgien policy doctrine of being pre-emotive in the name of National Security. Good or Bad. Depends on where you sit.

The problem is I do not believe that the US has an exit strategy that will end the killing of both US soldiers and innocent civilians. These "insurgents" are not fighting to return Saddam to power, but oust the "occupiers:. To what end. Take over and to become a radical Muslim state. I don't know if this would be in the US's best interest. The minute the US leaves Iraq, this will happen anyway. So they stay to stabilize the region and causalities rise. Can anyone else see the Catch-22 here. 

So a question you have to ask yourselves is. If Saddam hadn't been removed, although the subjugation of Iraqis would have continued, the potential of another Iran wouldn't be there and Al Queda would no stronger or weaker then it is now. As for the argument for WMD, they could have been ferreted out and neutralized before their potential was meet.

The acual war was well planned out, but the end game was not even considered. I think that this is Bush's error. You have to think of the long-term effects before considering any option. The long term effects of the Iraq invasion will affect the world (not just the US) for a decade or more. to come.


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (10 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> You may use it, but I will offer a caveat, which I hope you will also include. In an Internet thread, things are condensed a great deal. I take the time to look at lots of evidence, but it takes a ling time to record and digest, and of course replying with the 10 year fiancial reports from Haliburton (for example) is very time consuming and difficult to do with limited bandwidth. This means that you may dismiss my views as being "contrary to the norm", while if peole took the time to do the origional reserch, they might be coming to rather different conclusions then "George Bush is a War Criminal", or "BMD is weaponizing space" to use two rather notorious examples.
> 
> Your proposed paper could also include the rather interesting observation about how information can be made to dissapear on the left:   During the 1990's all the world's intelligence agencies were convinced about the reality of the WMD program in Iraq, and past evidence of Iraqi use in the Iran Iraq war, and against Kurdish civillians in Iraq were a good predictor of how Saddam Hussein would behave with new stocks of WMD. IF you peruse the records of the US Senate, you will even see speeches by Senator John Edwards warning of the immanent danger to the United States that Saddam's weapns programs posed. Somehow this has all gone down the memory hole and all we hear now is "George Bush lied".



So far, I haven't exlcuded any of what you have just finished mentioning. My intentions are not to cut and paste your words to create a strongpoint in my paper, instead they are to present your words as they were expressed, and work them into an already developed argument. Do we still have a deal Mr. Majoor? Feel free to add anything more.

Lindsay


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2004)

Words as a strong point? The pen really is mightier than the sword! Deal


----------



## MissMolsonIndy (11 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Words as a strong point? The pen really is mightier than the sword! Deal



What I meant was...your words aren't creating a point, they are reinforcing one.

Thanks. Your helpful nature won't go overlooked.


----------



## Pugnacious (11 Dec 2004)

Here is my take on it...oh I'm sure you are all waiting for this. 

Something to consider...The bus loads of people that shipped themselves over to act as human shields soon found themselves transported by Saddams millitary away from the Hospitals, and schools to military targets, like Sam sites, and millitary control centers..when they protested this "shuffle" they were told while facing a bearrel of an AK that they should then leave.

Safe to say that nobody in Iraq is going to miss this wingnut.dictator and the only people that will miss Mr.Saddam are those that benifited by his "administration", at the cost of MUCH pain and suffering of the rest of the people in the country.

But this illegal war was not about about humanitarian reasons as there are much larger hotspots in this world for human rights issues. Nor was it about terrorism, potential or otherwise.  Only Bu$h and his buddies really know what the deal is.  Maybe in 20 - 30 years we will get the full picture...maybe.

Protest away it will do no good anyway, esp' if one has no idea what the situation really is.

Cheers!
P.


----------

