16-02-2003 04:05									#1
	Peace for the Sake of Peace Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

After reading articles like the one bellow on the various peace marches and such held around the world, it seemed to me that so many just want peace for the sake of peace. Many did try to justify why we should just leave Iraq alone, but most of the reasons were just ignorant responses, or based on far-fetched conspiracy theories. Im not saying there arent any good reasons why not to go to war, Im just saying that most are ignorant of these, as well as the good reasons why we should go to war.

It is indeed noble to want peace, but I believe as long as belegerent ass holes are out there, sometimes war is necessary. What do you all think about having peace just for the sake of having peace?

quote: Protesters at U.N. Rally Against Iraq War The Associated Press Feb 15 2003 4:08PM NEW YORK (AP) - A nti-war demonstrators packed the streets north of the United Nations headquarters Saturday, filling police-barricaded protest zones for more than 20 blocks as civil rights leaders and celebrities energized the banner-waving crowd. ``Just because you have the biggest gun does not mean you must use it,'' Martin Luther King III told the demonstrators as he stood before an enormous banner reading: ``The World Says No To War.'' ``Peace! Peace! Peace!'' Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa said as he walked from the United Nations toward the massive rally. ``Let America listen to the rest of the world - and the rest of the world is saying, `Give the inspectors time.''' New York Police wouldn't provide a crowd estimate, but the protesters stretched for 20 blocks along First Avenue and spilled west to Second Avenue, where police in riot gear and on horseback patrolled. Organizers had hoped to draw at least 100,000 people. Police reported some arrests, but didn't immediately provide details. In cities across the country and around the world - many in the capitols of America's traditional allies - well over a million people came out Saturday in protest of U.S. military action against Iraq. In Rome, protesters waved rainbow ``peace'' flags, while participants in Berlin marched through the streets to back the anti-war position of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. In London, at least 750,000 protesters added to the pressure on Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been Europe's biggest supporter of President Bush's strong stance that Iraq must prove it has no weapons of mass destruction or face possible war. Anti-war rallies were also planned in about 150 U.S. cities, from Yakima, Wash., to St. Petersburg, Fla., as well as in major cities including Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami and Seattle. Protesters in Detroit chanted ``Give peace a chance.'' ``We need to leave Iraq alone,'' said Detroit rally organizer Kris Hamel of the Michigan Emergency Committee Against the War on Iraq. Thousands of protesters marching to the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia included Quakers walking in silence, a Korean group banging drums and students chanting peace slogans. ``Can you justify blood for oil?'' read a sign held by 14-year-old Marianna Daniels at a rally in Madison, Wis. ``I'm worried about the corrosion of civil liberties in this country,'' said Grant Smith, a policy analyst from Key Biscayne, Fla., who joined a protest in Miami. ``People here are all against the war, even if not all of them think it's being brought about for the same reason.'' It's not just the usual protesters, said Arthur Buonomia: ``Middle America is getting off their sofas and their big screen TVs and are trying to bring about the changes that are good to end this war.'' The New York rally was opened by singer Richie Havens performing ``Freedom,'' just as he did 34 years earlier at the original Woodstock Festival. Speakers included Susan Sarandon, Harry Belafonte and Pete Seeger. Security in New York was extraordinarily tight, with the city on high alert for terrorist threats. The streets around the U.N. headquarters on Manhattan's East Side were mostly empty but for police. Demonstrators were kept several blocks to the north because city officials denied their permit request to march along First Avenue past the U.N. complex. All along the area, authorities deployed a new security ``package'' including sharpshooters and officers with radiation detectors, hazardous materials decontamination equipment, bomb-sniffing dogs and air-sampling equipment able to detect chemical or biological weapons. Other demonstrators supported the possibility of U.S. military action. About 1,000 demonstrators gathered on Manhattan's West Side, where 41-year-old George Sarris held a sign reading ``Bomb Iraq.'' ``The liberals are the complainers,'' Sarris said. ``The Republicans aren't. So I came out to tell our side of the story.''

link to article

Things that upset me were stuff like this:

quote: ``Can you justify blood for oil?'' read a sign held by 14-year-old Marianna Daniels at a rally in Madison, Wis.

This is a 14 year old boy... Im not saying that 14 year olds cant have an opinion, but... c'mon. The invading Iraq for oil arguement just doesnt cut it. We can and do get all the oil we need from other sources, as well as Iraq under the present situation... I dont see how spending Billions on a war for oil we really dont need is something that is a wise thing... thus there are other reasons why the US would invade...

another thing:

quote: ``Just because you have the biggest gun does not mean you must use it,'' Martin Luther King III told the demonstrators as he stood before an enormous banner reading: ``The World Says No To War.''

This is an arguement for peace, for the sake of peace. The US would not be using our big guns just because we have them , we would be using them for our protection and self-interest, which just makes this apeal for peace irrelevent to me.

discuss... ill be gone for awhile, but will return soon...

	16-02-2003 04:17									#2
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Yeah, 750 000 in London today - that is one hell of an ant-war statement...over 1% of the countries population.

	16-02-2003 04:20									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: This is a 14 year old boy... Im not saying that 14 year olds cant have an opinion, but... c'mon

Remember that in 3 years this boy can sign up to die for his country.

And do you really doubt we could find ignorant support for the war?

	16-02-2003 04:41									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: This is an arguement for peace, for the sake of peace. The US would not be using our big guns just because we have them , we would be using them for our protection and self-interest, which just makes this apeal for peace irrelevent to me.

Protection? No. That's stretching it.

Self-interest? Yes. However, I'd contend that self-interest is not a sufficient reason to wage war.

What's wrong with wanting peace? The current thinking seems to be "wipe out or alienate anyone who causes us trouble", but how will that really work, in the end? Is it really possible to rid the world of all Anti-Americanism through war? I just don't think that's good logic.

	16-02-2003 04:50									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

My Neighbour in Germany is a Kurd from Iraq. He hates Saddam, like pretty much everybody there. He is against the war, because he fears for his family who stayed there, most notably those in Baghdad.
Why do you pro-war Americans fail to acknowledge this war will cause thousands of civilian casualties ? You seem to see it like a "game" which is "over" (Bush's words). Those who risk their lives or their families' suprisingly do not see it as a "game". Europeans and pro-peace people are concerned by the incoming slaughter as well.

Don't you think the hate of seeing a great country killing thousands for the sake of its imperialistic interests is a reason enough to oppose war ?

	16-02-2003 04:51									#6
	Tired of ads?

You don't need the oil for domestic US consumption, it's to control the rest of the world.

	16-02-2003 05:09									#7
	Get a bigger avatar today!

There is never a need to justify peace. One-hundred percent of the burden of proof is always on those who call for war.

In the current situation, the Bush regime has not come close to meeting that goal, nor do they even look as if they care. Their "case" for war, such as it is, has consistently been ridiculous, exaggerated, hysterical, and dishonest.

	16-02-2003 07:44									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

As KrazyHorse pointed out -- ignorance goes both ways.

There are ignorant war mongerers and ignorant anti-war protesters.

But, there are also intelligent war advocates, and intelligent anti-war protesters.

	16-02-2003 09:32									#9
	Re: Peace for the Sake of Peace Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kramerman Im not saying there arent any good reasons why not to go to war, Im just saying that most are ignorant of these, as well as the good reasons why we should go to war.

1. Oil
2. Water
3. "I hate Saddam!"
4. Control of the region

None of these will pass muster in the UN, hence the silly BCN accusations.

	16-02-2003 09:47									#10
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The blood for oil thing isn't that far off the mark - just a less sophisticated appreciation. If we were talking about some sub-Saharan Africa shithole with the capability of nuking Burundi and Burkina Faso simultaneously, the US wouldn't bat an eye, let alone commit almost half it's ground combat capability and set itself up for an indefinite occupation with no clear political plan or exit strategy.

So oil is where it's at, baby, hundreds of NYMEX traders who are speculating the price up past two year highs (back when the economy was booming and demand was higher) can't be wrong.

Nukes? Those have to be developed at large, fixed facilities, which have high levels of electricity requirements. Easy to take out, before he ever gets them.

BCW? It wasn't so much a problem when Saddam was our boy, why should it be a problem now? Except that we didn't mind when we thought he was our boy, because that enhanced US influence in the mideast, not challenged it.

One of the biggest reasons is that Saddam continuously giving us the finger (as he, or any other sovereign leader, has the right to do) is not the sort of symbol we like in a region area where we wish to exert geopolitical dominance. Saddam is an easy, visible target, and a way of making a demonstration of force.

Is there an urgent reason to go to war now? No. Therefore, there is nothing at all wrong with "peace for the sake of peace." The US should have higher priorities both domestically and internationally, but the perpetual state of war has to be maintained, or Bush & company will have to grapple with tougher issues like the economy and domestic policy. And real solutions to terrorism, not constant flyswatting low level al Qaeda operatives and wannabes.

In any event, before invasion, there should be a greater degree of preparation, because the US military and some of it's critical capabilities will be stretched thinner than they should be, and there should also be some real vision of what to do with a post Saddam Iraq.

	16-02-2003 09:48									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't think you have to be very intellectual to know if you support a war or not. Most anti-war protesters are the type to be against any war where the US is not being attacked. They may be persuaded to support a war where the US is not being attacked if it can be demonstrated that it is absolutely neccessary (emphasis on absolutely). The pro-war intellects in this country have not met that standard. That's why this war will be at least as unpopular as Vietnam

I don't think we should dismiss the opinions of those who do not take an intellectual approach to the war. After all, the war affects them too.

	16-02-2003 09:56									#12
	Got spare money?

Peace is always justified, and peace for the sake of peace seems obvious.

	16-02-2003 12:14									#13
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Peace is always justified, and peace for the sake of peace seems obvious.

Well put.

	16-02-2003 12:25									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat So oil is where it's at, baby, hundreds of NYMEX traders who are speculating the price up past two year highs (back when the economy was booming and demand was higher) can't be wrong.

The price of oil has been bid up on the expectation that the war will case spot shortages to develop. The provailing opinion is that Saddam will set fire to his fields like he did in Kuwait so people are engaging in a wild feeding frenzy. If you will recall the same thing happened in 1990 but the price dropped sharply once fighting started and it became obvious Saddam was going to be beat down hard.