War Criminal Demonstration

[Bruce Monkhouse]

MMI,
Honest mistake, then no problem....I retrieve my "shame-shames".

Now, just to make everyone aware, I slightly disagree with Muskrat on this one, as long as one is not simply " trolling" then lets hear it.
But to put some minds at ease Mr. Bobbitt did not pick "Mods" according to their views and to be truthful we do butt heads regularly however, just like professional soldiers must learn to do, we present a united front.
[and that grasshopper, is one of the most important things you WILL learn in your future]

 

[winchable]

I will let this thread open until the staff disagrees completely, at which point I will cut it, because no thread is worth the unity of the staff.

As I see it this is a discussion based on the civil rights which we live and die for, and if you think about, as military members have very little else to do in our careers.

So I say, have at it folks, as long as it's somehow related to this particular protest.
Otherwise, open your own threads. It's your right!

 

[Goober]

On the topic of the protesters (all over the country) protesting against Bush, I think thats fine, and I respect anyone who stands up for what they believe in, but I think Che made an excellent point about some of these protesters...

...
They're doing the same thing in Halifax though it seems they've decided Bush is guilty already, so I don't see the point behind the trial.
Plans are to cuff "Him" and take "him to the US consulate at Purdy's Wharf.
...

Any respect I had for such a protester goes right out the window.

Behind any "crime" there is a motive. Putting it simply, isn't it the motive that determines whether or not the act is a crime? As a cheap example, you shoot somebody and kill them. Are you a criminal? Depends on the motive, you could have done it in self defence, or you could have been been aiming for the guy with the knife behind him, or you could have planed it for weeks.

The motive behind Bush invading Iraq was to end Saddam's tyranny. Is that a crime?

Some reports say as many as 100,000 civilians have been killed since the US invaded Iraq. War is not nice. A few years of war and 100,000 civilian deaths is worth the price of a country's freedom wouldn't you think? After all, if Saddam was not removed then his civilian death count of 300,000 (reported) would still be rising, and wouldn't stop rising. Is this motive enough?

With 300,000 civilians killed by a tyrant dictator, isn't turning a blind eye, or not doing anything about it a crime?

 

[muskrat89]

I slightly disagree with Muskrat on this one

Ahh Bruce - there is a first time for everything 

I was simply expressing a personal pet peeve - not a "Moderator one". There are a few people here who, in my perception, offer little to military discussions, but wax poetic in the political ones. This is a military board, so it strikes me strange - that's all. Like someone who joins the board, and 95% of their posts are about...ummmm....baseball card collecting. Now if a thread is about the hobbies of people who joined the board - and someone wants to talk about baseball cards, great. If that's all they want to talk about, though - why aren't they hanging around in the "baseball card collecting" sites?  ???

Anyway, like I said - a personal peeve - as long as the conversations stay in the guidelines, and Bruce agrees with me most of the time, the thread is in no danger from me, as a Mod. Carry on, folks - I'll quit butting in now.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I have to agree with you, my friend, your always right, darn it! ;D

 

[a_majoor]

I was simply expressing a personal pet peeve - not a "Moderator one". There are a few people here who, in my perception, offer little to military discussions, but wax poetic in the political ones. This is a military board, so it strikes me strange - that's all.

"War is the continuation of Politics by other means". If military action is not directed towards achieving some political objective, then it is really brigandage on a large scale, and indeed most of the history of war from the Iliad on is really the story of rape, pillage and plunder on a large or even epic scale (Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Adolf Hitler and Stalin come to mind). Indeed, military historian Martin Van Crevald makes the point that until the birth of the modern Nation-State in the mid 1600s, the very concept of war as we understand it did not exist (although I would be inclined to debate that proposition).

My main problem with the "leftist" position is they still seem to focus only on the undeniable collateral effects of war, without looking at the political objectives the war is meant to achieve. This allows people to make silly statements like "Bush is a war criminal" with a straight face, since for the most part, they really have no idea what they are talking about. If 100,000 people have been killed in Iraq due to the actions of the coalition (BTW, this was a speculation, not an informed casualty count, see the "100,000 and counting" thread), then a very high price has been paid, but the political ends; removing an aggressive and destabilizing regime, breaking support links to various terrorist organizations, preventing the resumption of WMD research and development, and saving the citizens of the country from further oppression; would seem to make taking action worthwhile. Since the real casualty count is much lower, then the price is acceptable for what has been achieved, and since the conventional laws of war have been followed quite scrupulously by the coallition, then there is no case for stating the President is a "war criminal".

The other problem with most "leftists" is even when confronted by factual evidence, they will simply dismiss you with some insult and carry on as if you had never spoken. The only thing for "ignorent redneck cracker bible-thumping baby-killers" to do is continue to press on, find the facts and publish them wherever you can. It can't hurt, and you might help someone somewhere.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Well, if the initial post is appropriate to the Forums (and I'm not convinced that it is), maybe some advertizing for the alternative is appropriate, too:

www.protestwarrior.com
"Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism & Communism, War has NEVER solved anything"

(Under "HQ" >> "Chapters" there's an Ottawa chapter, but I don't see one for Halifax)


-Out

 

[48Highlander]

Well, if the initial post is appropriate to the Forums (and I'm not convinced that it is), maybe some advertizing for the alternative is appropriate, too:
www.protestwarrior.com

I love that site  ;D  Downloaded all of their videos and then showed 'em to some of my more moderate leftie friends.  You should have seen the looks on their faces.

 

[q_1966]

All im doing is telling that there is a protest, if you belive in it, speak out on tuesday.

- Shawn

 

[Brad Sallows]

The template of a protest is predictable.

Some of the attendees will meander in approximately serpentine patterns which would make a snake puke while waving their arms and call it "dance".

Others will resurrect a memory of beating spoons on pots as a 2-1/2 year-old and fancy the resulting arhythmic percussion and cacophony to be "music".

Some will recite pointless rants which have made to awkwardly rhyme as "poetry".

If the "poetry" is approximately coincident with the "music" it will be styled "song".

A few of the onlookers with memories of their own self-embarrassment will feign enthusiasm for these displays.  The rest will applaud politely, or try not to look involved.

Spokespeople will denounce the target of the protest, and the crowd will re-use slogans thirty or more years old, imagining themselves to be clever.

The next day all the participants will email their friends to regale them with triumphant tales of the celebration.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Brad, that's an awesome post!

Shawn: "Me, too!"

 

[Slim]

Brad Good post!

I must say that these clowns are no more together and organized than when I was operating against them several years ago. I really tried (at the time) to approach the whole thing with an open mind to see if, just maybe, there was a point to all this.

Conclusion: Nope, no point at all. Trying to understand them is pretty much a complete waste of time.

There was a core group of agitators who travel around the continent stirring trouble and whipping (or trying to) everyone into a frenzy. Everyone else who attend do so out of a set of vague fears that they should do SOMETHING but are not quite sure what.

Allot of their funding is actually done by groups who are very anarchistic by nature, and who's goals include the abolishment of our society, organized religion, any military and policing apparatus...The list goes on. Who's funding them is anyone's guess...!

The whole thing kind of sickens me actually. These "professional" protesters take the names of all the good people and drag them right through the mud, they delude people into believing untruths that seem to suite the pros at the time and they threaten violence to anyone who does not agree.

It doesn't always work out for them either as at one protest I worked (undercover) I observed one "professional" protester knock a bunch of mailboxes and newspaper boxes down in the financial district in Toronto. His actions were promptly countered by another group of "local" protesters who came right along behind and set them all back up again, ignoring the threats of violence from the first one!

Sometimes I think half the reason that I do what I do for a living is to make sure (or at least help make sure) that everyone is allowed to live peace as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

For those of you who think that Iraq doesn't want the US there to get rid of these AQ clowns, go walk down the main street in Bagdad and see what happens. Believe me when I say that they are plenty glad to have gotten rid of someone who tortures, rapes and robs them.

Makes you wonder what kind of people think that Saddam should be put BACK in power?!

My 2 cents

Slim

 

[q_1966]

Good Post, Slim

I suppose you could be right on that one, but i havent heard the iraqi civilian side of the story, shouldnt they be showing that perspective a bit more in the news,

- Shawn

 

[a_majoor]

Consider that Dan Rather's Producer had been working on the "Bush Air National Guard" story for five years, but the best they could do was some documents of dubious authenticity (which even non expert eyes in the "Blogosphere" recognized as Microsoft Word format [wow, that Bill Gates can even travel in time!]).

Consider also that John Kerry's released military documents have certain allusions to the Senator being dishonourably discharged from the Navy, and there are hundreds of documents that were never released by Kerry. How many news organizations were (or are) working on that story?

The simple fact of the matter is that Iraqi citizens building prosperous lives is exactly contrary to the "message" that the war was wrong, etc. etc. It would take a very bold member of the "Mainstream Media" to broadcast the story, and the resulting sh**storm would probably end that producers and reporter's career.

For a closer to home example, for many years during the Mike Harris government here in Ontario, the Walkerton water tragedy (where eight people died from drinking contaminated water from the municipal system) was always trotted out as a direct consequence of his policies. At the inquiry, it was discovered the illegal well was drilled in 1975, and various missives from the Ministry of the Environment were ignored during the time that Bill Davis, David Peterson and Bob Rea were premier. Now that the perpetrators (the Kobel brothers, who managed the municipal supply all those years) have been found guilty and are up for sentencing, where are all the apologies to Mr Harris?

I'm afraid we will have to did up the information ourselves. Fortunately, the Internet makes this easier than at any time in history, all you need is a properly sceptical attitude (BS filter) and the willingness to do the work yourself.

 

[Cloud Cover]

and the willingness to do the work yourself.

What? The government doesn't do the work? The revolution will take care of that .... 

 

[MissMolsonIndy]

My main problem with the "leftist" position is they still seem to focus only on the undeniable collateral effects of war, without looking at the political objectives the war is meant to achieve. This allows people to make silly statements like "Bush is a war criminal" with a straight face, since for the most part, they really have no idea what they are talking about. If 100,000 people have been killed in Iraq due to the actions of the coalition (BTW, this was a speculation, not an informed casualty count, see the "100,000 and counting" thread), then a very high price has been paid, but the political ends; removing an aggressive and destabilizing regime, breaking support links to various terrorist organizations, preventing the resumption of WMD research and development, and saving the citizens of the country from further oppression; would seem to make taking action worthwhile. Since the real casualty count is much lower, then the price is acceptable for what has been achieved, and since the conventional laws of war have been followed quite scrupulously by the coallition, then there is no case for stating the President is a "war criminal".

The other problem with most "leftists" is even when confronted by factual evidence, they will simply dismiss you with some insult and carry on as if you had never spoken. The only thing for "ignorent redneck cracker bible-thumping baby-killers" to do is continue to press on, find the facts and publish them wherever you can. It can't hurt, and you might help someone somewhere.

Do you mind if I steal that? I will leave you anonymous.

 

[a_majoor]

Steal? A person of gentle breeding NEVER steals!. They may acquire, however.

Before you acquire this quote, may I ask in what context it will be used?

 

[Dogboy]

OK ill wade in hear


1 the war on Iraqi was for several resons no-mater who  you talk to (hey your going to kill a few 1000 people you need a few resons)


no-mater who Saddam was or what he did. their are worse people in the world in power right now so why do we not invade them?

why was Saddam our friend when he was killing those people on his own? better yet why did we give him weapons to do it ?


the UN says the war was wrong and condemned it
the UN was set up to help prevent just this from happening (one contry invading another without provocation )


Even if BIG IF  Bush was guilty of war crimes (i don't give him that much cred.)
the USA dose not recognise the international human rights courts and will not follow its laws or rulings

 

[Infanteer]

As much as I tried to delve into your poorly written post, I still could not divine a point....

 

[Dogboy]

my mane point is that the war even if it is a good thing (hey freedom is good )
why do we not do it for every murderous despot ?
and and if the war was wrong who's going to do anything about it ?

were damed if we do damed if we don't