Rally Against the War February 15

[Chris Alger]

On February 15 and throughout the weekend, demonstrators in at least 30 cities around the world will protest the imminent US invasion of Iraq. With as many as 10 million demonstrators expected from all over the political spectrum, it might be the largest peace event ever staged.

For those of you who oppose this war, I encourage you to turn out and be heard.

[Jimbo]

I agree with Chris here. Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are valuable rights and should be excercised albeit peacefully. I do hope war in Iraq is not inevitable not due to peaceful demonstrations but due to Iraq complying with the UN Secutity Council resolutions before it is too late.

[adios]

I wonder what the turnout will be in NYC?

[MMMMMM]

I'm afraid I can't even share this moderate view, Jimbo--I think Saddam should be removed even if he were to comply fully with the U.N. Resolutions.

Why?

Well let's just say that I consider it odious in the extreme to allow this tyrant to go on broadly torturing and executing his own citizens as a means of retaining power. I doubt the causualties of this war will be anywhere near as high as most are worried about: Iraq has virtually no chance of even putting up a modest resistance. Iraqi soldiers will be surrendering as fast as they possibly can. The numbers of caualties due to this war might well be less than the number of citizens Saddam will continue murdering, torturing and raping over the next decade or so if he is allowed to retain power.

[IrishHand]

My heart is warmed with the enthusiasm with which you embrace the US's self-chosen role in governing the entire world (or at least that portion of the world that's unable to put up a fight, since as I understand it you bascially oppose similar measures for China and North Korea).

[MMMMMM]

Don't misinterpret what I said.

I'm not advocating that the US govern the whole world--and you damn well know it. I'm advocating throwing out a few of the worst tyrants.

Also, I'm getting sick of folks saying well, why aren't we throwing out every tyrant then? What a stupid argument. Isn't it better to make some progress, to right a few great wrongs, than to do nothing at all? And spare us the guilt trips, the criticism of motives, because we happen to have our own interests involved here too--that's another stupid argument we hear a lot now. If we can do ourselves--and others--some good, then what's wrong with that?

By the way, many Iraqis want to get rid of Saddam--but I guess that doesn't figure into your equation...instead you see it as the "the US's self-chosen role in governing the world"--which is a crock if I ever heard one.

[Chris Alger]

"Iraq has virtually no chance of even putting up a modest resistance."

This reflects one of the more comical contradictions among mainstream war propaganda. He has a huge army! He invaded Kuwait! He has Weapons of Mass Destruction! He's an aggressive tyrant that threatens the region and the world! But we can overthrow him on the cheap because he's defenseless. It requires a thorough brainwashing to get people to think like this without seeing the obvious.

" I consider it odious in the extreme to allow this tyrant to go on broadly torturing and executing his own citizens as a means of retaining power."

I doubt it. I think you're just emotionally wedded to the notion that official enemies of the U.S. so designated have to go, regardless of what they've actually done.

As evidence, consider the widespread use of torture by those who "retain power" with the help of your own government. Turkey, for example. "While criminal suspects also face the prospect of torture and maltreatment at the hands of the regular police, Turkey’s anti-terror police have become infamous both within the country and outside of Turkey for the widespread use of such practices against detainees accused of political crimes, both violent and non-violent."

http://216.239.51.100/custom?q=cache...n&ie=UTF-8

Despite these atrocities, and others I've pointed out to you, according to Asst. Sec. State Elizabeth Jones "Turkey is a very important partner for the United States. And in that respect, the United States has supported very strongly Turkey’s work in support of its accession to the European Union." This doesn't seem to bother you enough to demand that your country stop funding the Turkish government and providing it with lethal aid, yet you support something as expensive and devastating as a foreign war when it comes to torture and tyranny in Iraq, even if Iraq admittedly poses no conceivable threat to the U.S..

So while you rationalize your war rhetoric with a professed concern for human rights, what you actually say and do proves otherwise. You "really want" to do something about human rights in the same sense that someone who sits around smoking dope and watching TV all day "really wants" to get an education and become a material success. You can talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk.

I'm sorry if this is harsh, but I'm sick of reading all this nonsensee about concern for human rights that is transparently dishonest.

[MMMMMM]

I know you're trying to be considerate and logical here, and I'll give you credit for being considerate--but not logical.

Iraq being able to significantly resist our assault is a very different matter than Iraq being able to wreak malicious mischief on a large scale, or being able to attack us or our allies through terrorists or intelligence agents armed with biological weapons--or with radioactive "dirty bombs."

Turkey is indeed a nasty state in the regards you mention. Yet Iraq surpasses that by far, with widespread torture and executions of entire families, and even extended families. Saddam simply eliminates those he perceives as political threats. He is, in vitually every major respect, a mini-Stalin incarnate--hindered only from attaining greater infamies and atrocities, like his idol, by circumstances beyond his control. Nor has Turkey recently visited unprovoked war upon two of its neighbors, or slaughtered its own citizens en masse with weapons of mass destruction.

I maintain that Iraq does indeed pose conceivable threats to the US, and that these threats are potentially very grave. Just because Iraq can't lob Scuds at us doesn't mean that threats of radiological weapons or militarized anthrax aren't serious--imagine a REAL anthrax attack on our soil, not just a few letters. Saddam has allied himself with terrorist elements in Palestine, and probably supports Hizbollah at least indirectly in some manner (perhaps only by his relationship with Syria)--and Hizbollah's leader has recently announced that Hizbollah will be launching attacks against the United States.

No, I maintain it is quite naive to rule out the threat potential posed by Saddam--even if we can stomp Iraq into the ground in an all-out war.

[Chris Alger]

"Iraq being able to significantly resist our assault is a very different matter than Iraq being able to wreak malicious mischief on a large scale, or being able to attack us or our allies through terrorists or intelligence agents armed with biological weapons--or with radioactive 'dirty bombs.'"

You persist in equating Iraq's record of attempted regional imperialism with a tendency to randomly murder large numbers of Americans. Saddam has been in power for nearly 25 years and has had every opportunity to "wreak malicious mischief." He hasn't done so. He has no incentive to do so. There is no evidence he is planning to do so. In the final analysis, all you are saying is that he's a bad guy, a domestic tyrant and regional aggressor, and therefore the U.S. has the unilateral right to invade, kill anyone who gets in its way, and dictate the form of government. Any other nation state that claimed such a right against "our" domestic tyrants and regional aggressors would properly be labled an international outlaw, a threat to world order and a "rogue state."

[MMMMMM]

"Saddam has been in power for nearly 25 years and has had every opportunity to "wreak malicious mischief." He hasn't done so."

Trying to have George Bush Sr. assassinated wasn't malicious mischief? Anyway, you are putting too much trust in Saddam--way too much trust.

Also, any totalitarian government, which does not hold free elections, should have no moral legitimacy. It merely rules by terror and force. The whole world should rise up against such tyrants, yet you seem to claim it is wrong not to accord their governments equivalent legitimacy. If a band of thugs took over some tiny country, a democratic republic say--and turned it into a concentration camp, would you say that we should accord that new government legitimacy? I say hogwash. Further, I feel that every country in the U.N. which does not have a freely elected government should be kicked out of the UN and not recognized as legitimate by the rest of the civilized world--well, that's how I feel...whether it is practical is another matter.

I submit that there is a vast difference in the degree of moral legitimacy between those governments which represent their people and those which do not, ruling merely by force.

The words "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" are more than mere words, written by our founding fathers, and they are more than just "American words." If there is any good purpose to government, it is in representing the will of the people, and in helping to secure their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If there is any bad form of government, it is when government becomes a tool for oppression rather than representation.

Are you actually arguing that deposing Saddam is equivalent to another country deciding to depose our government because they don't agree with it? This is yet another example of what I feel are poorly constructed comparisons--the drawing of equivalences where there are real and substantial differences. While on the surface one may look like the flip side of the other, upon looking a little deeper we see the immense distinctions.