Give peace a chance?! Hypocrisy at its finest

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
User avatar
Sirensa
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1822
Joined: September 16, 2002, 7:56 pm

Give peace a chance?! Hypocrisy at its finest

Post by Sirensa »

I'm not sure which is more frightening... war or the anti-war protestors..

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/k ... 1c1ec.html

135 beacons of "peace" were arrested for violence in Portland, OR last night..
Groups of anti-war extremists burned American flags, smashed restaurant windows, spray-painted slogans on the Burnside Bridge and shouted down a pro-war demonstration. Sgt. Brian Schmautz, a spokesman for the police bureau, said there were reports of protesters pouring acid on windows at Portland’s World Trade Center.
I find this absolutely hilarious...
About ten protesters told deputies at the jail their names were John or Jane Doe – causing unexpected difficulties. The jail seizes cash from people arrested and hands them a check for the same amount when they leave. A few people complained when they got checks written to John or Jane Doe.
Fucking ridiculous that anti-war protestors cannot even be peaceful themselves. But I imagine they got their message of peace heard through violence! What a bunch of hypocrits.
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

I agree it is stupid. About as stupid as going to war to create peace.
User avatar
Brotha
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 943
Joined: September 6, 2002, 5:31 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Brotha »

I'm just wondering why people around the world weren't protesting Saddam's actions in the last several months. Why weren't they marching holding signs asking for Saddam to fully cooperate with inspectors and spare us all this war? Why were almost all of Chirac's comments directed at Bush rather than imploring Hussein to come clean?

In a perfect world Kelshara, a world without dictators and agressors like Saddam, war to make peace would be illogical and stupid. But in the world we live in, where some irrational and inhumane people force things like this upon us, it's suicide not to meet the threat, with force if everything else fails.

But yeah Sirensa, these protestors, as many that I've seen are, are hypocritical and retarded.
User avatar
noel
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 10003
Joined: August 22, 2002, 1:34 am
Gender: Male
Location: Calabasas, CA

Post by noel »

Kelshara wrote:I agree it is stupid. About as stupid as going to war to create peace.
I disagree with what you said. And before you ask, no I'm not picking on you.

In a perfect world, there would always be a reasonable diplomatic solution to every conflict. Sadly, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where large groups of people make unreasonable demands that aren't good for the other large groups of people. Occasionally someone has to stand up to those that are being unreasonable and occasionally, talking doesn't solve anything.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

My comment was loaded with sarcasm.
I'm just wondering why people around the world weren't protesting Saddam's actions in the last several months. Why weren't they marching holding signs asking for Saddam to fully cooperate with inspectors and spare us all this war? Why were almost all of Chirac's comments directed at Bush rather than imploring Hussein to come clean?
I'll answer this one:
- Because they were wanting proof before war.
- Because they disagree with preemptive strikes without proof.
- Chirac got attacked HARD by Bush which sent him strongly on the defensive, which means he took a harder stand against USA. Bush fumbled that one.
- People wanted Iraq to fully cooperate, but they were NOT ready for military action yet.
- Peopel are not 100% against military action, they are against the timing and rushing it.
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

civil disobedience is a valid form of protest, and oftentimes the most effective.
User avatar
Vetiria
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1226
Joined: July 3, 2002, 4:50 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Decatur, IL

Post by Vetiria »

civil disobedience is fine. violence is not.
User avatar
noel
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 10003
Joined: August 22, 2002, 1:34 am
Gender: Male
Location: Calabasas, CA

Post by noel »

kyoukan type-R wrote:civil disobedience is a valid form of protest, and oftentimes the most effective.
That's hilarious. So what you're saying is... when you can't resolve a situation to your satisfaction using diplomatic means, it's ok to take some form of aggressive action?
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

no, only a simpleton would surmise that from what I said.

obviously marching and chanting protests from the majority has been ineffective in getting the bush adminstration from bombing the towlies; the next step is usuall civil disobedience. oftentimes property damage is taken more seriously. this is what happens when the government so blatantly ignores the will of the people.

I myself probably wouldn't involve myself in a demonstration like this but I don't blame people for becoming frustrated that their government are war mongering killers and wrecking shit to get their attention. Nobody was hurt.
Millie

Post by Millie »

I plan to join in on a mass protest one of these days. I could use a new stereo and some more DVDs.
User avatar
noel
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 10003
Joined: August 22, 2002, 1:34 am
Gender: Male
Location: Calabasas, CA

Post by noel »

kyoukan type-R wrote:no, only a simpleton would surmise that from what I said.

obviously marching and chanting protests from the majority has been ineffective in getting the bush adminstration from bombing the towlies; the next step is usuall civil disobedience. oftentimes property damage is taken more seriously. this is what happens when the government so blatantly ignores the will of the people.

I myself probably wouldn't involve myself in a demonstration like this but I don't blame people for becoming frustrated that their government are war mongering killers and wrecking shit to get their attention. Nobody was hurt.
Clearly, I'm a simpleton. Or perhaps in your rush to be controversial, you didn't explain yourself properly. At any rate...

Excluding the acts of violence, vandalism and property damage, in the city of San Francisco (just to use one example), it is illegal to have 1000 people gather and protest, and disrupt traffic, and cause a disturbance with out a permit from the city. These laws are in place so that the city can assist in making sure that both the protestors, and the regular citizens are able to co-exist without normal citizens being inconvenienced or the protestors being harmed, etc. However, these 'doves', who claim to be for peace, had no problem disrupting the lives, traffic, schedule, and time of their fellow countrymen, and they also resisted arrest as well. It wasn't civil disobedience, it was criminal.

One of the beautiful things about the United States of America, is that you are allowed to protest your government even during a time when they might need your support. I have no problems with people protesting, or feeling that we're not doing the right thing. This does not mean they should be allowed to break the laws, and disrupt the lives of their countrymen while doing so.

Simpleton indeed.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
User avatar
Neost
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 911
Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:56 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: neost
Wii Friend Code: neost
Contact:

Post by Neost »

How can you say a majority opposes the war in Iraq? Now you can throw out that this is just Americans, but the protesters we are talking about were American.

The deal with the anti-war protesters is that they are more vocal, and believe that everyone should see the world through the rose colored glasses that they use. They are hypocritical in more than one sense. They use violence to get their point across. They also believe that everyone should heel to their creed and believe it so thoroughly that they justify any means to make it so.

What the hell do you think would happen to them if they were to grow a set of balls and show up in the middle east protesting against Saddam?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar18.html

washingtonpost.com
71% of Americans Support War, Poll Shows
But Overseas, Attitudes About Invading Iraq Continue to Be Overwhelmingly Negative

By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 19, 2003; Page A14


Americans have rallied strongly behind President Bush and his policy of disarming Iraq by force, while most Europeans remain sharply critical of Bush and his foreign policy, according to surveys released yesterday.

Overwhelming majorities of Americans have accepted their president's call for war with Iraq as the only practical way to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and end the threat posed by his weapons of mass destruction, according to a poll conducted Monday night by The Washington Post and ABC News.

Support for going to war with Iraq surged to 71 percent after Bush's nationally televised speech, up from 59 percent a week ago, according to the poll. Nearly two in three -- 64 percent -- approve of the way Bush is handling the confrontation with Iraq, an increase of 9 percentage points in the past eight days.

Across the Atlantic, attitudes continue to be broadly negative toward Bush and his policies toward Iraq, even in several nations that Bush counts among his "coalition of the willing." In France and Germany, countries that oppose the war but would be counted on by the United States to help rebuild Iraq, more than two in three reject a U.S.-led attack, according to surveys conducted last week by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

"Looming war with Iraq has taken a further toll on the image of America -- not only in countries highly critical of our Iraq policy, such as France and Germany, but also in coalition countries such as Britain, Poland, Italy and Spain," wrote Andrew Kohut, the center's director.

Even in Britain, only 39 percent of citizens favor going to war , down from 47 percent in November, though other surveys suggest that support may have rebounded in recent weeks. In Spain, which joined with Britain and the United States in a recent unsuccessful effort to win U.N. Security Council support for war, eight in 10 oppose military action against Iraq.

Still, some experts say that these differences, which can be expected to widen even further once the war begins, could largely heal if the war is quick, relatively bloodless and does not spread beyond Iraq.

"Once the war is over, I think both sides will wake up and realize, whether they like it or not, it's in our common interest to work together, and people will want to do that," said Philip H. Gordon, head of the Brookings Institution's Center on the United States and France, citing past international experiences in the Balkans. Before that military intervention, he said, "the U.S. and Europe were deeply divided. Once we finally got up the will to go in militarily and moved on to the reconstruction phase, cooperation was excellent because we all had a common interest."

Partial support for that view came from the Pew survey, which found that residents in most countries surveyed thought that "in the long run the Iraqi people will be better off, and the region more stable, if Iraq is disarmed and Hussein is removed from power by the U.S. and its allies," Kohut wrote. "Only the Russians and the Turks, who see this as a war by the U.S. against an unfriendly Muslim country, disagree."

Souring European views of Bush and U.S. policies contrast strongly with the surge in backing for the president and his war policies that followed Bush's speech to the nation Monday. Seven in 10 said they supported Bush's televised call to go to war without the blessing of the United Nations unless Hussein and his sons leave Iraq within 48 hours, according to the Post-ABC poll. An equally large majority believes that Bush has done enough to win support from other nations. More than two in three said his policies on Iraq are the right ones, although less than half are strongly convinced.

The poll suggests that the increased support for war is largely because more Democrats have come around to the president's view. About six in 10 Democrats said they support an attack on Iraq, compared with about four in 10 in an early March poll. At the same time, however, nearly half said they disapproved of the way Bush has handled the conflict with Iraq.

The public's preference for a U.N.-endorsed war also has faded following the collapse of efforts by the United States and its allies to win support for a second war resolution in the Security Council. Three in four in the Post-ABC poll disapproved of the way the United Nations has handled the crisis, up from slightly more than half three weeks ago.

But the anger shown in these poll numbers does not reflect a desire to withdraw from the international community or to punish France for derailing a second U.N. resolution backing war. Only a third said they believe that the United States should withhold support and be less cooperative with the French government, and even fewer (one in five) say the United States should change its relationship with the United Nations.

The Pew survey, which included a separate poll in the United States, also found broad international support for the United Nations. "There is more consensus on both sides of the Atlantic about the U.N. It is still important, say majorities or pluralities in most countries polled," Kohut found.

The Post and ABC interviewed 510 randomly selected adults after Bush's speech. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 5 percentage points. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represent other potential sources of error in this poll. Approximately 5,500 adults were interviewed for the Pew project, including 500 each in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia and Turkey, and about 1,000 each in Britain and the United States.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Image
User avatar
Acies
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1233
Joined: July 30, 2002, 10:55 pm
Location: The Holy city of Antioch

Post by Acies »

Proves nothing but how fickle people can be:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jan21.html
Bujinkan is teh win!
User avatar
Bubba Grizz
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 6121
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:52 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Green Bay, Wisconsin

Post by Bubba Grizz »

I think that protesters that become violent and cause damage to the property of innocents should be treated as terrorists and convicted as such.
Zamtuk
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4781
Joined: September 21, 2002, 12:21 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Post by Zamtuk »

I wouldn't be too surprised to see a terrorist strike a la The Seige in a huge protest rally. My question other than the large irony involved, is who would they blame? The terrorists or Bush.
Wulfran
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1454
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
Location: Lost...

Post by Wulfran »

I find it somewhat amusing that people always attack Bush for his hardline stance on Iraq, but place no blame on France when Chirac was just as steadfast in his opposition to any sort of consequence for violating UN resolutions like 1441. Perhaps if Chirac had willing to be a little more flexible as well, the diplomatic process could have continued. It took more than one hardass to drive this situation to the point where armed conflict occured. I laughed when I saw some TV coverage of the British Foreign Secretary and his opposition counterpart saying this very thing a couple days ago.

Honestly, I don't know that I like of what Bush is doing, but he at least has the fortitude to make a decision and follow it through, unlike people like Chirac (who didn't veto 1441) or Prime Minister Chretien of Canada (who also supported 1441 but now refuses to follow through on the consequence of that resolution being violated). To be honest Canada doesn't have the resources to contribute much, with their peace keeping and commitments to the War on Terror in Afghanistan, but they could have at least supported their ally and trading partner morally. They could have also chosen to make decision (either for or against the use of force i Iraq) and been consistent: if they didn't want force to be used, then why did so many countries support resolution 1441?
Wulfran Moondancer
Stupid Sidekick of the Lambent Dorf
Petitioner to Club Bok Bok
Founding Member of the Barbarian Nation Movement
User avatar
Atokal
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1369
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:23 am

Post by Atokal »

kyoukan type-R wrote:no, only a simpleton would surmise that from what I said.

obviously marching and chanting protests from the majority has been ineffective in getting the bush adminstration from bombing the towlies; the next step is usuall civil disobedience. oftentimes property damage is taken more seriously. this is what happens when the government so blatantly ignores the will of the people.

I myself probably wouldn't involve myself in a demonstration like this but I don't blame people for becoming frustrated that their government are war mongering killers and wrecking shit to get their attention. Nobody was hurt.
Yes the braintrust strikes out in the name of peace loving people everywhere.

Kyoukan strolls over to the soapbox stepping daintily up to the startling height of 4'10" Her screeching voice can be heard for miles.

"BROTHERS AND SISTAH'S, GO FORTH AND DESTROY WHAT TEH SO CALLED WHITEY HAS MADE. FOR HE WILL NOT LISTEN, AND VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY THING HE WILL UNDERSTAND, WE MUST SAVE OUR BROWN VIOLENT BROTHER WHO WILL NOT LISTEN TO THE UN, KICK WHITEY AND THE ESTABLISHMENT IN HIS IMPERIALIST BALLZORZ1!!11!1111

Hypocritical nonsense, Kyoukan. Civil disobedience does NOT have to be violent.
Btw I guess the guy I saw in San Fransisco getting dragged from his car and beaten was not hurt. Or the guy in Toronto wearing an "I support The USA" at a peace rally who was struck with a placard in the head, which drew blood.
Last edited by Atokal on March 22, 2003, 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atokal
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

you emphasized the wrong word, moron. and no one said it has to be violent, but violent demonstrations are certainly a well-used tactic, and mobs do tend to get out of control in any situation.

the rest of your post is the same delusional rambling you always babble so I won't even bother commenting on it beyond that other than to say get a fucking pastime dude. it's fucking _pathetic_ having to read the exact same post from you again and again.
User avatar
Atokal
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1369
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:23 am

Post by Atokal »

kyoukan type-R wrote:you emphasized the wrong word, moron. and no one said it has to be violent, but violent demonstrations are certainly a well-used tactic, and mobs do tend to get out of control in any situation.

the rest of your post is the same delusional rambling you always babble so I won't even bother commenting on it beyond that other than to say get a fucking pastime dude. it's fucking _pathetic_ having to read the exact same post from you again and again.
If it is pathetic to read these post kyoustupid it is only because of the way it makes you feel. You have been called out so many times in recent weeks for your ignorance, the pain must be unbearable.

Much luv for the Kyoukan.
Atokal
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli
User avatar
Neost
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 911
Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:56 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: neost
Wii Friend Code: neost
Contact:

Post by Neost »

Acies wrote:

Proves nothing but how fickle people can be:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jan21.html
Give me a break. Let's look at the datelines here. You quoted an article that is almost 2 months old. The dateline on the poll I quoted was 3 days ago. How does that prove people "fickle"?

What it proves is that the silent majority approve of the actions taken to remove a depraved, violent, and sadistic motherfucker from a position of power over people who are defenseless against him.

Just like many situations in the US today, the vocal minority are attempting to steer events to their way of thinking. Sure, they have a right to voice their opinion and I agree that they should. What I don't agree with is their methods. They have a right to voice that opinion as long as it doesn't intrude on the rights of others to continue their day-to-day lives. Parade up and down the sidewalks with signs, singing anti-war ditties all you want. But to disrupt the activities of other law-abiding citizens is wrong.

And in case you think that Iraqi citizens don't support this action, check any major news outlet for some of the interviews with Iraqi expats that would love nothing more than to be able to return to their homeland.

Read about some of the atrocities that Saddam and company have visited upon the citizens of Iraq. Why the fuck aren't these people protesting the rape of innocent women, murder of anyone with views opposing the current Iraqi government, or the obvious religious persecution that goes on in Iraq? Why isn't Martin Sheen and all the other Hollywood bullshit artists using their wealth and "influence" (god, that makes me laugh) to help these people?

The most quoted concern from anti-war protesters is the welfare of the Iraqi people. How come there wasn't any concern for the Iraqi people a year ago? Five years ago? How come you guys aren't talking about the atrocities commited by Saddam? If you are so concerned about human rights and the welfare of the Iraqis I suggest you buy/beg/steal/borrow/find a clue and figure out who the bad guy really is here.
Image
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

Atokal wrote:If it is pathetic to read these post kyoustupid it is only because of the way it makes you feel. You have been called out so many times in recent weeks for your ignorance, the pain must be unbearable.

Much luv for the Kyoukan.
wow I count six different things that have been said by six different people this week all in one fucking orgy of brainlessness. you really are a piece of work. and by piece of work I mean stupid fucking moron.
User avatar
Xyun
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2566
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:03 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Post by Xyun »

Dipshit wrote:Civil disobedience DOES not have to be violent.
Image
I tell it like a true mackadelic.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
User avatar
Krimson Klaw
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1976
Joined: July 22, 2002, 1:00 pm

Post by Krimson Klaw »

If civil disobediance becomes violent, is it still considered civil? I was always a fan of civil disobedience when I studied Henry David Thoreau's essay on it in school, some of our greatest leaders in American history have practiced it. Civil Disobedience has my full support, as long as no one gets hurt, because then it just becomes a riot.

Here is his essay right here, it's very good.
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/civ.dis.html
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

Give me a break. Let's look at the datelines here. You quoted an article that is almost 2 months old. The dateline on the poll I quoted was 3 days ago. How does that prove people "fickle"?
It does show how fickle some Americans can be. They are willing to switch their support on the flip of a coin.

Also: I strongly opposte the violent demonstrations. It is the wrong way fo doing it.
Post Reply