FSPilot 0 Posted March 21, 2003 My boss and I are planning a pro-war demonstration soon. At least we're planning on planning one. I just hate for the world to think that the violent "peace" protesters that are making a scene all over the place represent the entire US opinion. Just so everyone knows I just heard on the news that 53% of the US strongly supports the war in Iraq. According to gallup.com 64% support the invasion while of course 33% oppose. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wires 0 Posted March 21, 2003 That's a brilliant idea a pro-war demonstration it's great just might get beaten up by the 'pacifits' 'No War, No War, kill the pro-war demonstrators!' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 21 2003,06:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just so everyone knows I just heard on the news that 53% of the US strongly supports the war in Iraq. Â According to gallup.com 64% support the invasion while of course 33% oppose.<span id='postcolor'> 33% is a strong opposition. It means that every third American is opposed to the war. In Sweden statistics shown yesterday said that four of five Swedes were opposed to the US invasion. There's talk of Sweden suggesting a UN resolution against the current aggression on Iraq. I doubt however that our PM has the backbone to do something like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 21 2003,11:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">33% is a strong opposition. It means that every third American is opposed to the war. In Sweden statistics shown yesterday said that four of five Swedes were opposed to the US invasion.<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, but they're not the majority. I just dont want people thinking that the president is going against what the majority of his people want, that's not true. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There's talk of Sweden suggesting a UN resolution against the current aggression on Iraq. I doubt however that our PM has the backbone to do something like that.<span id='postcolor'> Or that the UN would have the backbone to do anything about it. j/k I'm passing by a billboard that's pretty obviously propoganda almost every day. It changes every once in a while, but says things like "The UN wants to take away your gun." Bear in mind that this is Kansas so gun owners are the majority (no, this isn't racism, I live here too It's just a fact). It also said once "Get the US out of the UN." And listed a webpage. I didn't write it down as I was zooming by at 15 over the limit while drinking gallons of pure Iraqi oil as my car guzzled 20 mpg. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 21 2003,06:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 21 2003,11:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">33% is a strong opposition. It means that every third American is opposed to the war. In Sweden statistics shown yesterday said that four of five Swedes were opposed to the US invasion.<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, but they're not the majority. Â I just dont want people thinking that the president is going against what the majority of his people want, that's not true.<span id='postcolor'> It's not really like that. It's that the majority of his people support him. I mean, how would you characterize your position? You said earlier that you would not support a war without international approval. Well, it wasn't approved, but I'm guessing that you are not considering yourself to be anti-war, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 21 2003,06:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Trouble In Paradise<span id='postcolor'> It's the Sun so not surprisingly it's pure BS. I watched that summit on TV and they were all very polite. In the end they basically circumvented the issue and pledged humanitarian support for the Iraqi people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 21 2003,11:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You said earlier that you would not support a war without international approval. Well, it wasn't approved, but I'm guessing that you are not considering yourself to be anti-war, right?<span id='postcolor'> My opinion changed but I guess I didn't post it. Once France put up so much of a hissy-fit about never supporting a war no matter what I figured it would never even get to the UN voting table with France there. So I don't think we'd ever know, via the UN at least, if this war really has international support. I figured that if France wasn't going to let there be any vote on it I'd go ahead with what I know and support the war, even if it meant that we'd face some heat internationally. But now I think we're doing better than we thought we would with 40-some countrys that are publically supporting the war, not to mention those that aren't doing it in public. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garritos 0 Posted March 21, 2003 ...sometimes I think im reading the tree-huggers.com forum. Â Does anyone wanna talk about how the war is going, or about any possible strategys being employed? Â I for one would like to take a break from all of the politics and cheapshots and focus on the brave men and women fighting on both sides. Â My thoughs at the moment are with the familys of the 16 ppl onboard the Ch-46 that went down a few hours ago. *edit* Â OK I R Stoopid Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Garritos @ Mar. 21 2003,11:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...sometimes I think im reading the tree-huggers.com forum. Â Does anyone wanna talk about how the war is going, or about any possible strategys being employed? Â I for one would like to take a break from all of the politics and cheapshots and focus on the brave men and women fighting on both sides. Â My thoughs at the moment are with the familys of the 16 ppl onboard the Ch-46 that went down a few hours ago.<span id='postcolor'> http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=28311 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edc 0 Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My boss and I are planning a pro-war demonstration soon. At least we're planning on planning one<span id='postcolor'> Good idea . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 21 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 21 2003,11:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You said earlier that you would not support a war without international approval. Well, it wasn't approved, but I'm guessing that you are not considering yourself to be anti-war, right?<span id='postcolor'> My opinion changed but I guess I didn't post it. Â Once France put up so much of a hissy-fit about never supporting a war no matter what I figured it would never even get to the UN voting table with France there. Â <span id='postcolor'> France's and the majority of the UN SC position was only to let the inspector finish their work. The option of going to war always remained. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But now I think we're doing better than we thought we would with 40-some countrys that are publically supporting the war, not to mention those that aren't doing it in public.<span id='postcolor'> LMAO, try 20 that are publically supporting and 20 more that Powell claims give secret support. On the other hand you have about 120 countries that openly oppose your position. The UN opposes your position and Kofi Anan has declared the war illegal. So please don't talk about international support, becuase you don't have it. The troops on the ground are only US and British. Poland will perhaps send 200 troops and Denmark has sent two naval vessles (a sub and a corvette). It's pathetic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 21, 2003 Well I've heard different. And to be honest we only had 31 countrys that supported us in the first Gulf War, so Also I think Austrailia has sent in approx. 2000 troops, not confirmed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edc 0 Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France's and the majority of the UN SC position was only to let the inspector finish their work. The option of going to war always remained. <span id='postcolor'> france said that they would veto any resolution that had any possibility of military action. Â And Blitz has said that while Iraq cooperated in the beginning that they were starting to cooperate less as time progressed. And by the way one of the missiles fired on Kuwait(their pretty sure this was a Scud) would be a significant violations(that they have it) even more so since Saddam said they did not. Blitz also said that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wires 0 Posted March 21, 2003 OI! Australian SASR are in Iraq! We have over 2000 personell over there including support and ships and F/A-18s they may be small in number but the SASR kick ass! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 21 2003,06:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I've heard different. Â And to be honest we only had 31 countrys that supported us in the first Gulf War, so <span id='postcolor'> Over 30 nations were activly involved in the Gulf War and had combat units. That's 5 now (US, UK, Poland, Australia and Denmark). The Gulf War 1 was supported by 129 countries politically. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Renagade 0 Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 21 2003,06:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 21 2003,061)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 21 2003,05:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have you seen the news on the demonstrations around the world? Â Riots is more like it. 1300 people arrested in San Francisco, pictures of police beating demonstrators. Tear gas used in NY. Water cannons used in Brussels. Â The closest thing I have see to this is archive pictures of anti-Vietnam demonstrations. This is serious.<span id='postcolor'> I posted this a couple pages back in the Dogs Of War thread... But... At a couple of the demonstations some of the demonstrators were chanting "Hey hey, how many kids did you kill today"... Pisses me off..<span id='postcolor'> Nice regime there in the USA. Â <span id='postcolor'> Not sure how protestors chanting against soldiers has to do with the dipwads in office...<span id='postcolor'> because their an arm of the government which is could be easily conused in this situation ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Mar. 21 2003,06:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France's and the majority of the UN SC position was only to let the inspector finish their work. The option of going to war always remained. <span id='postcolor'> france said that they would veto any resolution that had any possibility of military action. Â <span id='postcolor'> No, that is what Bush's minister of propaganda Fleischer tried to make it. France said that it would veto any resolution that set an ultimatum that was not approved by the UN inspectors. If the UN inspectors said "attack tomorrow" then France would have attacked tomorrow. Do you wish me to post references? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And Blitz has said that while Iraq cooperated in the beginning that they were starting to cooperate less as time progressed.<span id='postcolor'> On the contrary Blix said that Iraq had started to cooperate on substance. The inspections were working better and better. As I said earlier due to Bush's decision to attack before the inspectors could complete their destruction of Iraqi missiles and other weapons, American soldiers will die from those. That's the president you support, one who is willing to sacrifice the the American troops because he is "becoming impatient". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Mar. 21 2003,06:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France's and the majority of the UN SC position was only to let the inspector finish their work. The option of going to war always remained. <span id='postcolor'> france said that they would veto any resolution that had any possibility of military action. Â And Blitz has said that while Iraq cooperated in the beginning that they were starting to cooperate less as time progressed. And by the way one of the missiles fired on Kuwait(their pretty sure this was a Scud) would be a significant violations(that they have it) even more so since Saddam said they did not. Â Blitz also said that.<span id='postcolor'> Dont forget, so did Russia and China. I love watching people like my room mate and some of the people here. Â If the news says that's how it is, then that's how it must be. Here is something they need to read and understand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edc 0 Posted March 21, 2003 Even besides the weapons of mass destruction, theres the issue of the tortures of many political dissidents, the attacks on the Khurds and the Shiites. edit:Also the Khurds are going to be sending somewhere between 60 and 100,000 troops to fight Saddams empire in the north at such cities as Mosul and Kirkuk. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Mar. 21 2003,06:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even besides the weapons of mass destruction, theres the issue of the tortures of many political dissidents, the attacks on the Khurds and the Shiites.<span id='postcolor'> I'm not talking about the issue of the need of removing Saddam. I'm talking about forcing an attack now. Even if you accept the arguments of the Bush administration for attacking Iraq, you can hardly defend that they would not wait another week until at least the inspectors had completed the destruction of weapons that were in progress. Those weapons have and will be used against US troops. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Mar. 21 2003,06:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even besides the weapons of mass destruction, theres the issue of the tortures of many political dissidents, the attacks on the Khurds and the Shiites.<span id='postcolor'> And? It is not the place of the United States to decide a government, however bad, needs to be removed. There are just as many evil warlords on the African continent that do just as many evil things (and kill more of their own citizens by the way) but we dont see the Almighty Bush talking about that, do we? Oh..wait.. no oil there... Iraq isnt all about oil, but if oil had nothing to do with it, there are regimes in Africa that need cleaning up before Iraq if you are basing merit for replacement on human rights records. Do a google search for Rwanda. Or better yet, Romeo Dallaire. Then get back to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edc 0 Posted March 21, 2003 What differentiates Iraq is that there were developing/have a biological, chemical, and if we failed to act decisively in the next few years a nuclear capability. Â That coupled with the human rights violations and attacks against his own people and peaceful nations on his borders, make Iraq a clear and present danger. The countries/dictators you listed above would have the same attentions as Iraq if that had the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq has, and has in development. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Mar. 21 2003,07:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The countries/dictators you listed above would have the same attentions as Iraq if that had the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq has, and has in development.<span id='postcolor'> You mean like North Korea or Iran? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted March 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ Mar. 21 2003,07:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What differentiates Iraq is that there were developing/have a biological, chemical, and if we failed to act decisively in the next few years a nuclear capability. Â That coupled with the human rights violations and attacks against his own people and peaceful nations on his borders, make Iraq a clear and present danger.<span id='postcolor'> To be blunt, bullshit. What differentiates Iraq is oil and an 'easy' target for aggresion. The IAEA has definitively stated that Iraq does not currently have the means to construct a nuclear device. In fact, I think they didnt even dignify the concept with an 'but he could have one in x number of years' They have the knowledge, but then again, anyone can get the information they need from most public libraries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
