Remove this Banner Ad

"Peace" Protestors

  • Thread starter Thread starter luthor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by Katthawk
Ironically as someone else said, a peace 'protest'. It is not the overall concept that bothers me but the vitriol that comes out and the utter contempt people hold for the 'warmongers' and 'killers'.
Click to expand...

Just as ironic the comments towards people voicing their concern about war always tend to get put in the one bucket...........it works both ways........and unfortunately always will.
 
Originally posted by Horace
Like many others I believe that there were other ways to disarm Iraq and at the very least the disarming should have been under the auspices of the UN.
Click to expand...

What are those ways?
 
Originally posted by The Milkman
What are those ways?
Click to expand...

Yeah thas the hard thing about it all. Saddam has been stuffing the UN and the world around with his stalling over not letting UN inspectors in, then letting them in, the discovery of the Al-Samoud missiles which were not declared in their report to Hans Blix, refusal to destroy the Al-Samoud missiles, then destroying the Al-Samoud missiles. All the time he gave the impression of co-operating with the UN so as to tell the world look Saddam is cooperating, there's no need for military actions. It is known that Saddam does have WMDs, chemical and biological weapons and has used them on the Kurds. However these weapons have not been located, and while Saddam and his henchmen have said to have destroyed them all, no documents have been shown to prove anything he has said. As far as i am concerned if this is the case then it is as good as having them as like i said it is common knowledge Saddam has them before.
 
Deployment of a UN peace keeping force, in support of the weapons inspectors, in my view would have been the most effective way of controlling and eventually disarming Iraq.

If all of the major powers US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia China, had have agreed to such a force, I very much doubt if Saddam would have been game to attack a peacekeeping force such as that when it arrived.

He should have been given an ultimatum along the lines of either fully co-operate with the weapons inspectors or we will occupy your country.

But what I really want to hear from all you warmongers, when are you joining the Coalition and heading off to do your bit.

Come on boys and girls put your money where your mouth is.

Hey you might really be able to show your courage by not only getting shot at by the Iraqis but also actually getting shot at by the Coalition forces themselves.

So far about half the allied casualties have been self inflicted. Watch your back boys and girls should be the motto.

What a wonderful bunch of fighters they are!

And by the way Katthawk, get real. Have a look at the vitriol and contempt that has spewed from the warmongers who originally started and have continued to post on this thread. We shouldn't show contempt for warmongers and killers? I think I have heard it all now.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by Horace
And by the way Katthawk, get real. Have a look at the vitriol and contempt that has spewed from the warmongers who originally started and have continued to post on this thread. We shouldn't show contempt for warmongers and killers? I think I have heard it all now.
Click to expand...

I was merely suggesting that a lot have become far more personal to individuals and I was not meaning just on here either. If they are so keen to maintain the peace then it just seems incongruous to shout and scream abuse and bring stuff in that has nothing to do with the issue.
 
Originally posted by Horace

In todays mad mad world, led by such dangerous people as Bush, Blair and Howard, all we can hope for is that the message of the peace movement starts a momentum, just as the moratoriums of the 60's did, and eventually sanity will prevail.

Thank God for the demonstrators I say, for without them to provide some balance, what hope would we have.

Please remember that in Iraq there are today many many innocent men women and children, who will die terrible deaths, through no fault of their own apart from having been born in the wrong country. Saddam Hussein is doubtless an horrendous individual, but what difference is there really between him and his so called and as yet unused "weapons of mass destruction", and Bush, Blair and Howard and their, there for all to see real weapons of mass destruction. May the three of them rot in hell.
Click to expand...


1. I think you have the names of "dangerous people" wrong. I cannot see the name of SADDAM INSANE.


2. The "peace" movement. Is this the same peace movement run and rioting throughout the streets in the cities.
Gandhi's peace movement is the only peace movement capable of claiming that title.

Those MORONS stifle the majority of the individuals rights. Or do you think screaming out in Parliament is clever? And why are those ugly white boards surrounding Parliament House? To keep a 50 or so demonstrators away.
Now that's freedom for the majority. :rolleyes:

3. "Iraqis dieing terrible deaths". You shoould read more. Or perhaps being dropped head first (if lucky) or feet first (if not so lucky) into a shredder.

Perhaps NERVE GAS is better. Maybe you should ask the Kurds. Lots and lots of film and pictures of women and children, some only toddlers, laying bleeding from the mouth after a INSANE attack.
(The Kurdish PM said over 100,000 people have diappeared. (ABC program, hardly known for its right wing stance.)

Now that is a lot of people. An MCG Grand Final crowd. I wonder where they are? And how they met there end?

I hope to goodness Saddam Insane and his evil sons are torn apart limb by limb.

Where would the Bosnia/Serb/Croatia conflict be WITHOUT the UNITED STATES. Europe did nothing but sit on there collective hands and then throw them up and when the led a NATO force, well, they got behind it.
The UNITED NATIONS did nothing.

It was left to the US to lead a coalition not sanctioned by the UN to stop the bloodshed.

Lastly, all along the coalition has stated that Saddam Insane, if not openly flaunting terrorists, is definitely harbouring terrorists.

The point has was made. And made with an Australian journalist's life.

Why it is only so-called "peace" people,:rolleyes: believe only a few countries should be democratically elected?
(Try storming the Iraqi Parliament and telling INSANE he is an evil dictator. How long do you believe you would last? And what would the consequences be not only for you, but your entire family?

Why do they "peace" people believe tyrants and evil men should run "other countries" while Australia, the US and Britain FIGHT FOR THOSE COUNTRIES FREEDOM?

WMD. Interestingly, US soldiers found new gas masks, dated 2002, along with older type weaponry?

Michele
 
Originally posted by Lestat
.

So its as simple as that hey. Saddam is a bit of a tosser (More then a bit by the way), so we should drop bombs on the whole or Iraq (or baghdad), so that he is removed.

Just a hypothetical question Myee. Please answer it ok.

If john Howard was just as bad a dictator as Saddam Hussien. If he did all the attrocities that Saddam did, everything the same.

Then the US decided that they were going to 'liberate' Australia, and began systematically bombing Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide, every night.

Every night while you were about to sleep, you'd hear bombs going off, occasionally one bomb would sound so close. Imagine how afraid you'd be.

Now imagine, one of those bombs hit your neighbours house, killing them instantly and injuring some of your family members.

How would you feel about the US?? Yes its a hypothetical, but please, try to answer it honestly. How would YOU feel? Not how you should feel.
Click to expand...

Well why don't we let the Iraqi Assyrian Catholic church speak.

They were in FULL agreement with John Howard and the coalition's attempt to rid that evil dictator and his evil regime.

Tell me, why in an oil rich nation, are people going hungry and lacking basic medical attention?

And don't use that pathetic excuse of "sanctions".

SADDAM INSANE and his evil family are skimming off $3 billion ever year and placing it into a Swiss bank account.
 
Unlike the vast majority of the those on the Left, a few like Christopher Hitchens consider the need to remove the murderous maniac Saddam as justification in itself for the war, aside from the issue of WMD. But sadly people like this guy who can examine and judge an issue without resorting to kneejerk anti-Americanism seem to be a rarity in this crowd. So for the rest of them who claim to care about the Iraqi people but actually want to keep Saddam in power, the question needs to be asked

Who will be the next champion of the Left once Saddam is gone?

Take your pick from bin Laden, Kim Il Sung, Mugabe etc. The more despotic, fascist and murderous the better. Just as long as they oppose the US.
 
Originally posted by Michele
Well why don't we let the Iraqi Assyrian Catholic church speak.

They were in FULL agreement with John Howard and the coalition's attempt to rid that evil dictator and his evil regime.

Tell me, why in an oil rich nation, are people going hungry and lacking basic medical attention?

And don't use that pathetic excuse of "sanctions".

SADDAM INSANE and his evil family are skimming off $3 billion ever year and placing it into a Swiss bank account.
Click to expand...

Evidence please?
 
I would guess that many who are anti-war despise Saddam, me included, and would love to seem him removed along with the rest of his regime. I guess it is fair enough to ask what should be done.

I'm not sure, but I would have at least waited until Blix had presented his final report. If that isn't good enough, so be it, but I'm happy with that stance.

As for knee-jerk anti-Americanism that some find offensive, I find the tag anti-American equally offensive and merely attempts to denigrate with a cheap shot. Just as all peace protestors are not left-wing Saddam-lovers, war supporters are not all rabid blood-lusting rednecks.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Ziggy1
Unlike the vast majority of the those on the Left, a few like Christopher Hitchens consider the need to remove the murderous maniac Saddam as justification in itself for the war, aside from the issue of WMD. But sadly people like this guy who can examine and judge an issue without resorting to kneejerk anti-Americanism seem to be a rarity in this crowd. So for the rest of them who claim to care about the Iraqi people but actually want to keep Saddam in power, the question needs to be asked

Who will be the next champion of the Left once Saddam is gone?

Take your pick from bin Laden, Kim Il Sung, Mugabe etc. The more despotic, fascist and murderous the better. Just as long as they oppose the US. [/QUOTE]
 
Around 50% if I heard right this morning. That is hardly surprising, given that polls of this nature generally behave this way shortly after action commences.

It remains to be seen if this trend continues. I guess a lot will depend on coalition and civilian casualties.
Originally posted by Rob
Actually, public opinion seems to be going the other way. Support for action against Iraq in this country is increasing if Newspoll is any guide.
Click to expand...
 
Ratbag element in any protest is hard to control.

I'll organise a love-in if that suits. I'm going to start one tomorrow by calling a press conference from my bed with Mrs Bulldog1.
Originally posted by daicos4ever
Anyone see todays 'protests' in Sydney and Perth on the news?

Yeah, peace, good one.
Click to expand...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by Ziggy1
Unlike the vast majority of the those on the Left, a few like Christopher Hitchens consider the need to remove the murderous maniac Saddam as justification in itself for the war, aside from the issue of WMD. But sadly people like this guy who can examine and judge an issue without resorting to kneejerk anti-Americanism seem to be a rarity in this crowd. So for the rest of them who claim to care about the Iraqi people but actually want to keep Saddam in power, the question needs to be asked

Who will be the next champion of the Left once Saddam is gone?

Take your pick from bin Laden, Kim Il Sung, Mugabe etc. The more despotic, fascist and murderous the better. Just as long as they oppose the US.
Click to expand...

That just about sums it up.

The peace-loving left cares nought about the human rights record or morality of a regime or movement, as long as it opposes the much-hated US.

Anyrthing is excusable as long as you are against the US.
 
Excellent posts Bulldogs 1. I absolutely agree
 
Absolute rubbish Luthor, the left cares more about human rights than you would ever know. One of the key reasons for their protests now are because of their concerns for the human rights of the Iraqis. And they are correct. Right now a humanitarian disaster is about to occur in Basra, if water supplies are not returned to normal and emergency relief does not reach that city.

If the US was really concerned about the human rights of the Iraqi people, it would have gone all the way and disposed of Saddam in the 1991 Gulf War. That was a much more justifiable war (if there is such a thing as a justifiable war), given that Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Instead they left him in power to wreak havoc, culminating in the slaughter of many thousands of innocent people. As I understand it they could have got him at that stage but for their own reasons deliberately did not.

It is a most curious fact that despite being able to pinpoint targets to bomb, having intelligence on these despotic regimes, which is supposedly second to none, the US never ever gets the main man. Why is this?

As for Ziggy1 and his outrageous comments about "bin Laden, Kim Il Sung, Mugabe etc." (who is etc by the way, which regime does he/she control?) to suggest that those who oppose the war would put these despicable people up as heroes, just beggars belief. There would be not one person in the peace movement or who supports the peace movement who would in any way shape or form, condone the actions of the likes of bin Laden, Kim Il Sung, Mugabe etc. (Well maybe etc as he/she hasn't yet made his/her mark yet, to the best of my knowledge)
 
Anyone see a Current Affair today and their interviews with the Sydney teenage protesters? None of the little pricks even knew why they were protesting.

When asked if they knew what what Saddam did to the Kurds in the Nth, or with the Oil fields in the South, none of them had any idea. Shrugs and giggling were common replies.

When asked how to remove Saddam from power they gave such informed responses as "Peace, no war" "Ask him to resign" and "let him stay. Its not our country, how would you like if someone came into your house and...". Absolute rubbish replies that are ignorant of the issues behind this war. Who cares about the humanitarian violations, genocide and oppression used by the regime, "no war" is the answer.

But congratulations to those who successfully used these kids in the protests. Child exploitation of the highest quality.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by Michele
Well why don't we let the Iraqi Assyrian Catholic church speak.

They were in FULL agreement with John Howard and the coalition's attempt to rid that evil dictator and his evil regime.

Tell me, why in an oil rich nation, are people going hungry and lacking basic medical attention?

And don't use that pathetic excuse of "sanctions".

SADDAM INSANE and his evil family are skimming off $3 billion ever year and placing it into a Swiss bank account.
Click to expand...

The sanctions should at least be considered a part excuse - you cannot ignore this. The US should look to lifting such sanctions/embargoes/and similar restrictions soon. Kim Jong Il on the other hand is the leader of a country whose people is starving big time, yet he is able to conduct nuclear testing. I am not aware of any sanctions there.
 
Originally posted by daddy_4_eyes
Anyone see a Current Affair today and their interviews with the Sydney teenage protesters? None of the little pricks even knew why they were protesting.

When asked if they knew what what Saddam did to the Kurds in the Nth, or with the Oil fields in the South, none of them had any idea. Shrugs and giggling were common replies.

When asked how to remove Saddam from power they gave such informed responses as "Peace, no war" "Ask him to resign" and "let him stay. Its not our country, how would you like if someone came into your house and...". Absolute rubbish replies that are ignorant of the issues behind this war. Who cares about the humanitarian violations, genocide and oppression used by the regime, "no war" is the answer.

But congratulations to those who successfully used these kids in the protests. Child exploitation of the highest quality.
Click to expand...

These are the types of teenagers the good doctor Carmen wanted to join in the protests. :rolleyes:
 
Well you would know The Ewok. Have you ever actually spoken to any of them?
 
Originally posted by Horace
One of the key reasons for their protests now are because of their concerns for the human rights of the Iraqis.
Click to expand...

Where were the protestors when Sadam was killing his own people?


Instead they left him in power to wreak havoc, culminating in the slaughter of many thousands of innocent people.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a case of better late than never?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom