27-10-2002 21:43									#1
	Resistance against US War on Iraqi is on the rise Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Thousands of Americans took to the streets during the weekend to oppose a war on Iraq, but the Bush administration stood firm and said it was time for the United Nations to act, not debate. Baghdad kept up its war of rhetoric with Washington, accusing it Sunday of trying to intimidate the U.N. Security Council into adopting a new draft resolution that could pave the way for military action. "The evil American administration is practicing clear terrorism inside and outside the Security Council in order to pass a new draft resolution," said al-Thawra newspaper, the mouthpiece of President Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath Party. "Each paragraph of the new draft represents a core of tension and an excuse for launching aggression." President Bush, well used to invective from Iraq, also faced vocal opposition at home Saturday when thousands of Americans marched to oppose any war. "This is going to be an ugly, unnecessary fight. Most of the world is saying 'no' to it," civil rights leader Jesse Jackson told a crowd at Washington's Vietnam Veterans Memorial. "Pre-emptive, one-bullet diplomacy, we cannot resort to that." Organizers said 150,000 people took part in the anti-war protest in the U.S. capital, but witnesses put the number at fewer than 50,000. A river of marchers flowed to the White House to press the case that a war on Iraq would be a tragic mistake. "George Bush, you can't hide. We charge you with genocide!" chanted the protesters. Another 40,000 marched in San Francisco, with thousands more demonstrating in Amsterdam, Berlin and other European cities. Up to 3,000 people marched in a Sunday anti-war demonstration in the Spanish capital Madrid. Bush was not around to see the White House protest because he was taking part in a summit of Pacific Rim leaders in Mexico. With a skeptical Mexican President Vicente Fox by his side, Bush repeated that the United States would lead a coalition against Iraq if the United Nations failed to act to ensure Saddam did not possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. "If the U.N. won't act, if Saddam Hussein won't disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him," Bush said. 'FUNDAMENTAL DECISIONS' Secretary of State Colin Powell, also in the Mexican beach resort Los Cabos for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, said key decisions had to be made in the next few days. "We have reached the point where we have to make a few fundamental decisions in the early part of next week and go forward," he said. "We can't continue to have a debate that never ends." The United States, with British support, has been pressing for six weeks for the 15-nation U.N. Security Council to approve a resolution intended to force Iraq to give up any weapons of mass destruction or face dire consequences. But France and Russia have resisted, floating rival draft resolutions that eliminate some of the tough U.S. language. All five permanent Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- have a veto. The U.S. resolution would give U.N. arms inspectors broad powers to uncover any weapons of mass destruction programs. It also would declare Iraq in "material breach" of existing U.N. resolutions and warn Iraq of "serious consequences" if it thwarts U.N. weapons inspections -- language Moscow and Paris fear the United States could interpret as a trigger for military action even without a follow-up Security Council resolution. Iraq agreed to give up chemical, biological and nuclear weapons after the 1991 Gulf War, triggered by its invasion of neighboring Kuwait. The task of finding such arms was assigned to U.N. weapons inspectors. They left before a 1998 U.S.-British bombing raid, ordered because Iraq was allegedly thwarting their efforts, and have never returned. A U.S. envoy also heard concerns raised by Gulf Arab allies. State Department envoy Lincoln Bloomfield said after talks with officials in the United Arab Emirates that he found "a great deal of concern about the security of the region and also the welfare of the people of Iraq." He said Washington would consult its regional allies before using military facilities there for any attack against Iraq.

Source

Now that large numbers of protestors have taken to the streets while the international community is frowning upon this unprovoked attack.

This looks like a political suicide for Dubya. Moreso if and when the planned invasion results in large numbers of body bags.

	27-10-2002 21:49									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

50,000 in a nation of 280 million is hardly what I would call large. I'm not impressed; they did better in 1990.

We're going to eject the Hussein regime and there is nothing you can do about it but get over it.

	27-10-2002 21:53									#3
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 50,000 in a nation of 280 million is hardly what I would call large. I'm not impressed; they did better in 1990.

Also ANSWER, the people who organized it, are disliked by a lot of people in the activist community which kept down the attendance a bit, for example I don't think hardly any Wes people went...

	27-10-2002 21:53									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well, some of us can't make it to Washington or San Francisco.

	27-10-2002 22:04									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

There isn't a war with Iraq yet. If Saddam defies the UN then there will likely be one though. Of course the peacenicks would like to see him defy the UN and get away with it. I suppose they think that promotes peace in the world.

	27-10-2002 22:07									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I really don't understand these protests. Why do they want us to just sit back, do nothing and wait for another terrorist attack like 9-11?

If we do nothing with Iraq, then Saddam will get nukes, which means that Al Queda would soon get nukes, and they would use it against us. Can you imagine the horror and death if 9-11 had been nuclear? The number of deaths and destruction would have been thousands of times worse.

	27-10-2002 22:14									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ummm.... not baselessly attacking odd countries on the other side of the world because their leader is scary looking? Promoting Peace? You might just have something there.

And please, can you warmongerers stop bringing this insane mantra of Iraq being in defiance of UN resolutions? I mean, you have to heard by now about all the other countries (::cough:: Israel!) that defy the UN on a regular basis. Please, either offer up something to answer that or stop saying it.

And, let's see, an arbritrary organization (or country) passes rules and says, "You must follow these or we're going to attack you." Not agreeing to that is a whole lot worse than making a specific agreement with a country of your own free will and then not following it (::cough:: North Korea!).

	27-10-2002 22:17									#8
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat If we do nothing with Iraq, then Saddam will get nukes, which means that Al Queda would soon get nukes...

Yes, you're right... because it has been shown how much more cooperation Iraq and Al-Queda have than, let's say, Syria (which already has nuclear weapons) and Al-Queda.

The fact is, Saddam Hussein wouldn't give a rat's a** about the US if we would just mind our own business.

	27-10-2002 22:27									#9
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

We were minding our own business when we were attacked last year as well. That is not always the answer to just sit here and mind our own business and pray that no one attacks us again. It is not possible for any nation to mind its own business anymore or I would agree with you. The hate is not going to stop because it is not only what we do but also what we are. Pretending that evil people will just go away and mind their own business is not the reality that must be dealt with.

	27-10-2002 22:33									#10
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: We were minding our own business when we were attacked last year as well.

By Iraq? That's news to me. Especially since Iraq and Al Quaeda aren't the best of friends, to put it mildly...

	27-10-2002 22:38									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I am not for attacking Iraq at all. But there must be a price to pay when they make a mockery of the UN. what would you suggest -- more sanctions and starve more people until they submit? It has been about 10 years now so what should happen next?

	27-10-2002 22:44									#12
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Well, if that are your criteria, I have a whole list of countries you can go after. Some of them are even good allies of the US. Don't you think they should pay a price too?

	27-10-2002 22:44									#13
	Tired of ads?

my mother, as well as some close friends, traveled to washington from cincinnati

i refused going on the trip, because i think we should look at all options. people dont seem to realize that there can be somewhat of a compromise. in history class, we were discussing the war, and i proposed not invading, but not just standing by and watching, and people laughed at me!

but what do they know

	27-10-2002 22:46									#14
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln We were minding our own business when we were attacked last year as well.

What America has been doing for the last 30 years cannot be called, by anyone's stretch of the definition, "minding it's own business."

quote: That is not always the answer to just sit here and mind our own business and pray that no one attacks us again.

You're right. We need practical solutions, not knee-jerk, "Let's go fight wars with everyone in the world that could possibly be called by someone somewhere a 'threat' to the United States."

quote: It is not possible for any nation to mind its own business anymore or I would agree with you.

Yes, because there are no countries in the world that are not involved in this. I can think of two right now that just happen to be on our borders. Canada doesn't go around attacking scary countries, do they even have a standing army? Nobody seems to feel the urge to go and murder them.

quote: The hate is not going to stop because it is not only what we do but also what we are.

Yes. Everyone is just so awfully jealous of us. That argument has never been anything but a complete load of lame BS.

quote: Pretending that evil people will just go away and mind their own business is not the reality that must be dealt with.

I agree. George Bush won't be going away for at least two more years.

	27-10-2002 22:48									#15
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Hueij Well, if that are your criteria, I have a whole list of countries you can go after. Some of them are even good allies of the US. Don't you think they should pay a price too?

few dictators are really dangerous, and those with capabilities of being dangerous (pakistan, and someone mentioned syria, both have nukes) dont have a history of using weapones of mass-destruction.

on the other hand, saddam killed tens of thousands of kurds with biological and chemical weapons

	27-10-2002 22:49									#16
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor Yes, you're right... because it has been shown how much more cooperation Iraq and Al-Queda have than, let's say, Syria (which already has nuclear weapons) and Al-Queda. The fact is, Saddam Hussein wouldn't give a rat's a** about the US if we would just mind our own business.

Could you post some sources for your statement about syria's nuclear weapons?

	27-10-2002 22:55									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Hueij Well, if that are your criteria, I have a whole list of countries you can go after. Some of them are even good allies of the US. Don't you think they should pay a price too?

No. Sadly, the people who bring up Iraq's defiance of UN resolutions as a grounds for attack will continue for as long as possible to ignore or evade that question.

	27-10-2002 22:58									#18
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: few dictators are really dangerous, and those with capabilities of being dangerous (pakistan, and someone mentioned syria, both have nukes) dont have a history of using weapones of mass-destruction.

But Pakistan does have a reputation when it comes to supporting terrorist organisations...

	27-10-2002 23:05									#19
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor No. Sadly, the people who bring up Iraq's defiance of UN resolutions as a grounds for attack will continue for as long as possible to ignore or evade that question.

As for Israel, yes, this is the number one problem in the entire world and something needs to be done. But you must realize that Israel has been attacked multiple times by multiple Arab countries and many important people in the neighboring countries have never repudiated their position that Israel must be pushed into the sea.

This is a contrast to Iraq which has not been a victim of agression, in fact they have been the agressor in multiple wars.

As for N. Korea, something is being done now. The US does not rush off willy-nilly and invade people. Military action is always a course of last resort.

	27-10-2002 23:08									#20
	Increase Your PM Length

Thanks tandy. In other words it is our fault that we were attacked. And if Bush wasn't in office we would be loved. I wonder what you all would have been protesting when we were attacked at Pear Harbour? The high price of pineapples that caused Japan to attack us?

	27-10-2002 23:09									#21
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick Could you post some sources for your statement about syria's nuclear weapons?

I heard it from the American news media. I suppose one should never trust them as an accurate source of information.

Syria did attempt to get materials necessary for nuclear capability about 10 years ago. Just recently they announced their intentions to start their nuclear research again.

Here is a link with a concise run-down of Syria's weapon capabilities. Syria's Weapons of Mass Destruction Profile

And here is one briefly explaining Syria's actions in the early 1990's. Syria's Nuclear Weapons Programs

	27-10-2002 23:12									#22
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by tandeetaylor No. Sadly, the people who bring up Iraq's defiance of UN resolutions as a grounds for attack will continue for as long as possible to ignore or evade that question.

There is no evasion. Or would you suggest that the entire world be attacked at once? In the mean time it is probably best just to march for "peace" and do nothing but appease?

	27-10-2002 23:15									#23
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Thanks tandy. In other words it is our fault that we were attacked.

Was it the fault of the people who died? No. Is the American goverment (past and present) partly to blame. Yes.

quote: And if Bush wasn't in office we would be loved.

Well, I don't know what another man would do in this situation, but I do know what an intelligent man would not be doing. Is Bush responsible for all that has happened? No. Will he be culpable for the things to come? Most defintely.

quote: I wonder what you all would have been protesting when we were attacked at Pear Harbour? The high price of pineapples that caused Japan to attack us?

I'm sorry, but I draw no comparisons between the two, and I never did. You're just grasping.

	27-10-2002 23:17									#24
	Remove this text

I have checked several sources, not one mentions Syria having nuclear weapons.

	27-10-2002 23:17									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Anyway, I have not heard any solutions coming from the "peace at any cost crowd". If America is the supreme evil in the world what should we do-- raise 250 million white flags and beg for forgiveness so we won't be attacked again?

	27-10-2002 23:20									#26
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln There is no evasion. Or would you suggest that the entire world be attacked at once?

Precisely. Defiance of UN resolutions is not grounds for attack. Of any country. Including Iraq. So stop bringing it up.

quote: In the mean time it is probably best just to march for "peace" and do nothing but appease?

Who are we "appeasing" by not attacking Iraq? What exactly has Iraq initiated against the United States that not attacking him would be "appeasement?"

	27-10-2002 23:20									#27
	Put an end to popups!

I am not grasping. The analogy is fitting. We experienced an unprovoked attack. What should we do now?

	27-10-2002 23:23									#28
	Got spare money?

There is no attack of Iraq. There is a threat of war if they continue to mock the UN peace efforts. Because everyone does it should it continue to be ignored or should we start somewhere and actually back up the words?

	27-10-2002 23:30									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Thanks tandy. In other words it is our fault that we were attacked. And if Bush wasn't in office we would be loved. I wonder what you all would have been protesting when we were attacked at Pear Harbour? The high price of pineapples that caused Japan to attack us?

Maybe the oil embargo against the Japanese had a tad to do with it. As well as American "imperial" possessions in the Philipines.

That and the fact the bastards thought they could take us.

	27-10-2002 23:36									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Maybe the oil embargo against the Japanese had a tad to do with it. As well as American "imperial" possessions in the Philipines. That and the fact the bastards thought they could take us.

What were they smoking?