anti-protest humor with a lot of good quotes (MP3)
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
i think it says more about the belligerent and arrogant mentality of many of the pro-war people; asking such a loaded question as how not doing something is going to accomplish something is just plain absurd, and berating the person when they stumble on it is downright reprehencable. i also found it rather revolting that the radio guy said himself that he did not want to fight for the cause; yet he was less concerned that then how people will treat him for fighting in the war. that recording is a wonderful example of what the mentality we need to avoid to maintain our status as a civilized society.
kyleb said:
Pu-lease. The guy doing the berating was an Iraqi exile. The girl with no answers at all except "bombs are not the answer" had no tie to the situation except her unfailing commitment to push her own agenda on others. I'll let self determination rule any day. If I were the Iraqi guy, I would have been much less polite.
If she's so simple minded about her beliefs that she can't back up her arguments with anything other than a mantra of peace, then she really shouldn't be going on a talk show, now should she?
Once again, if these people are so concerned about human lives, they should DEMAND military intervention instead of protest against it in places like Iraq, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Bosnia, etc. where peace and hugs don't work. Their non answers that lead to inaction only continue the killing, rather than solve it.
RussSchultz said:
please yourself Russ, his history or anything else is an excuse to treat people in such a way; and of course she did not have an answer, the question was unanswerable. he might as well have asked "how can a chicken cross the road if it doesn't move." they backed her into a corner with a loaded question, gave here a whole half sentence before cutting here off to tell here she is wrong, then when she tries to ask a question in response she gets cut off in the middle of it and told to let him speak. also the complaint that she was attempting "to push her own agenda on others" with her words is one hell of a double standard when you are defending people who were condoning warfare to achieve their own.
also Legion, listen to the recording again, she started laughing well after he became irate; it takes a big twist of the imagination to claim that her laughter is justification for him getting irate.
What I find interesting is that the justification for invading Iraq has shifted from removing a potential security threat (due to Iraq's supposed WMD capability) to liberating the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi regime was terrible, but there are worse around.
Maybe we should liberate China?
The Iraqi regime was terrible, but there are worse around.
Maybe we should liberate China?
You must understand he is irrate because she REFUSED to answer questions. This man has a great deal of experience with the suffering of Iraqi people and was merely reacting to her blatant disrespect for him and his feelings. He didn't start out irrate he beligerance caused him to become that way.
Oh please it has and obvious answer! The answer is leaving Saddam in power COULDN'T help the people as he IS the source of their exploitation Kyleb.
Nonsense. She backed herself into a corner by trying to defend and admittedly indefensible position!
He had every right to cut her off. She was bsing him and that much was obvious. She was avoiding answering the question. If should couldn't answer it the respectful reply is "I can't answer that question."
THe only person expressing mantra was here. Like a record she kept falling back on her anti-war mantra to justify her position.
What is wrong with the agenda of freeing people enslaved by a tyrant?
She refused to answer his question! Then she turned to laughing at him which only made it worse and of course she knew this.
The interviewer was correct she was coming accross like a 9 year old.
Is it possible there may be multiple reasons or must there be only one
Being that it was bad it was good to remove it...sounds logical...i guess since there are worse dictatorships removing one bad dictatorship but not ultimately the worst one isn't a good thing?
And what part of we does your country (australia?) represent?
Trawler said:
It's more damage control than anything... people are less opposed to removing Saddam in order to free the Iraqi people, than they are to removing Saddam because he poses a security threat to America. Bottom line is that this is turning out to be a Good Thingâ„¢, despite all the protests and fears going into it.
Crusher said:
I disagree. If the US could prove that Iraq had WMD and was prepared to use them, I doubt there would be anywhere near the amount of resistance to the war than there has been.
Crusher said:
I have no doubt that removing Saddam from power is a good thing, heck it's an excellent thing. I'm concerned about what may happen in Iraq and the region moving forward, but that's a different topic. Let's hope for the best!
My problem being is that we've set a very dangerous precedent. By bypassing the UN the coalition has paved the way for further military action without seeking backing from the security council.
Legion said:
Is it possible there may be multiple reasons or must there be only one
No probs with multiple reasons.
Legion said:
Not at all.
I'm concerned that public opinion is trying to be galvanised, so that if we don't find any WMD in Iraq, it doesn't really matter cause we helped out those poor Iraqis.
Do you think we're going to find WMD in Iraq?
Legion said:
A small, mostly token part. I believe we had a few F18s and F111s operating in Iraq. The SAS was operating in Western Iraq, and I we had a support ship based off the coast (apparently, the first shipment of medical aid to Baghdad came from this ship).
Where America goes, Australia will follow. That much is certain.
Just checking
You don't need to worry. Many have already made up their minds. Trust me the leftist quacks will use this to try and bulster their mantra for years to come regardless of its outcome.
We don't NEED to find WMD. Iraq was already in violation of articles of geneva convention, 1143, and 1441 if i am not mistaken. Their reluctancy to aid us was warned against years ago as we threatened severe punishment for refusing to adhere to the mandates.
Remember we had a CEASE FIRE with Iraq. The reason that Saddam is still in power is the fault of the convoluted "peace practices" of the UN which of course aided this man to further exploit his populace allowing more to die. If you think the "peace" processes in Iraq have aided its populace think again.
Ongoing peaceful negotiations with Iraq have turned up fruitless.
Do youhonstly believe the French are interested in "peace" in Iraq? If so I must say i am puzzled. France has been trading technologies for oil control for years now (even before the Oil4food act). Saddam owes the french a lot of money. I you question the US' motives then with information such as this you ought also question France's.
This isn't all about WMD.
There are a long list of this he isn't allowed to have
1. Long Range Missles
2. certain chemical precussors
3. nuclear materials of various grades
etc
Do i think we will find WMD? Yes i do. IIRC we have already found SCUDs were are only one of the various types of weapons he was not allowed to have.
You aren't capable of putting up an offensive against China. If you were able to gather the support of Taiwan and Japan i think you all could be able to put up a good front againts subs and ships off the coasts of japan or even starting from military bases from the Philopeans
Lezmaka said:
I agree emphatically. The UN is an invalid impotent organization. It has done very little good for the world. Much of what has benefited others has come at the cost of US support. To many of the nations backing the UN are militarily incapable of enforcing mandates of the UN. This leaves the US and England to do much of the work whilst countries like France are able to maintain their indolence.
Lol when will France (great UN supporter) apologize for invading egypt in 1956?
I compare the UN to my mother see.
It kind of goes like this
Mother (UN) completely powerless and poor incapable of raising and controlling her children (constituents). Along comes US (new husband) who can provide income and help control her children.
Without the US (Husband) she is inaffective as a parent and individual much like the UN is economically and militarily incapable without the US.
It kind of goes like this
Mother (UN) completely powerless and poor incapable of raising and controlling her children (constituents). Along comes US (new husband) who can provide income and help control her children.
Without the US (Husband) she is inaffective as a parent and individual much like the UN is economically and militarily incapable without the US.
kyleb:
The question was completely answerable, as others have stated, and there's only one reasonable answer. He is asking how leaving Saddam in power will bring about "justice and peace for the Iraqi people". Of course, the question is mostly rhetorical. It, as phrased, leads to one answer ("It doesn't"), and begs another: "What does bring about justice and peace for the iraqi people?". Not that I'm certain that the Iraqi gentleman would have asked the second question, it was obvious she didn't have that answer either (or she wouldn't have repeated "justice and peace for the Iraqi people" so many times).
While she's not directly advocating leaving him in power, the effect of her stance (anti-war) is essentially that. The mantra "justice and peace for the Iraqi people" is all nice, but if sanctions don't work, asking politely doesn't work, and if you won't use force bring about change, the end result is exactly the opposite of peace and justice for the Iraqi people. Because of this, the anti-war movement is many times pro-dictator.
Furthermore: When I say "pushing her agenda", I mean she lacks "standing" (to use a legal term) to really have much of a say. She's not the one being oppressed, at risk of dying in attempting to cast off that oppression, or has family or friends in such a position. She's not the one going to do the fighting (though, admittedly, she might have some relatives or friends that might) She should defer to those who are affected and not be an obstructionist in a situation that doesn't affect her.
The question was completely answerable, as others have stated, and there's only one reasonable answer. He is asking how leaving Saddam in power will bring about "justice and peace for the Iraqi people". Of course, the question is mostly rhetorical. It, as phrased, leads to one answer ("It doesn't"), and begs another: "What does bring about justice and peace for the iraqi people?". Not that I'm certain that the Iraqi gentleman would have asked the second question, it was obvious she didn't have that answer either (or she wouldn't have repeated "justice and peace for the Iraqi people" so many times).
While she's not directly advocating leaving him in power, the effect of her stance (anti-war) is essentially that. The mantra "justice and peace for the Iraqi people" is all nice, but if sanctions don't work, asking politely doesn't work, and if you won't use force bring about change, the end result is exactly the opposite of peace and justice for the Iraqi people. Because of this, the anti-war movement is many times pro-dictator.
Furthermore: When I say "pushing her agenda", I mean she lacks "standing" (to use a legal term) to really have much of a say. She's not the one being oppressed, at risk of dying in attempting to cast off that oppression, or has family or friends in such a position. She's not the one going to do the fighting (though, admittedly, she might have some relatives or friends that might) She should defer to those who are affected and not be an obstructionist in a situation that doesn't affect her.
Russschultz you are an idiot! We, the leftist protestors hate you because you present practical solutions to problems we try to make as convulted as possible. How dare you think that absolutely no good could come from allowing Saddam to remain in power! Now you listen! A good reason to keep him in power was (insert mantra here) as it would prevent blah blah blah. War will only kill less then Saddam does every year and ultimately remove a tyranical dictator from power - the power to exploit. As humanists we recognize his evolutionist perogative to exploit others! If you were as open minded and educated as we are you would feel the same. Your rightist-trash programming has made you more succeptable to logic ergo your pragmatism. Learn to think in the future before you respond!
"sophistical"
Nice way to dismiss an point of view without addressing it. Feh.
Nice way to dismiss an point of view without addressing it. Feh.
