Iraq, War, Peace, etc. Rambling thoughts...

I watched, mouth agape, as the TV News Media showed images of peace march after peace march. Was I seeing this right? Were people actually siding with "Sod Him, He's Insane"? They couldn't be, could they?

And then I thought...

WHO GAINS?

If there is no war with Iraq, Who Gains? Who, besides Saddam Hussien - the guy who builds monuments to himself while his people perish in run down hospitals, gains by keeping the status quo?

Marches across the planet indicate a great degree of planning. Small pockets of "anti-war" people could not coincidentally just happen to protest on the same day. And besides, some of these marches had HUGE numbers. Something requiring a great deal of planning. And to co-ordinate that on a world scale is something no back-yard peacenik could achieve by themselves.

The Socialist/Marxist left. The anti-capitalist. The same people who throw rocks through the windows of businesses and cause riots during the World Trade summits. They live for this stuff.

WHO GAINS?

France?

We know military troops and conflict - their public reasons for being against war with Iraq and not wanting to aid Turkey - are hypocritical as they send 2,000 troops to "enforce peace" in some out of the way place.

Germany?

Heavily funded the Euro. Currently the Euro is strong compared to the Greenback. If war happens and the greenback strengthens, the Euro will be weaker. Less money for the German coffers.

Russia?

How much of Iraq's weapons were bought from Russia (and France for that matter)? War could mean an end to a "trading partner". Russia can't allow that.

WHO GAINS if no war with Iraq takes place?

France, Germany and Russia for starters.

Who is most against war with Iraq?

France, Germany and Russia.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Iraq has been found to have weapons which exceed the UN permitted range of 150k (93m). What does Aziz, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, say about the request they should be detroyed?

"They should not be destroyed because they are practically within the range we are allowed to have," he said.

Fine. Lets say the UN agrees with him. After all... what's an extra 6 mile range, right?

What happens when they exceed the range by 8 miles?

Hey, you allowed 6, 8 is only a bit more. An extra 2 mile ain't gonna hurt no-one, right?

Where... at what distance of exceeding allowed range... does the UN eventually step in and say "HEY! We've had enough. They get destroyed right NOW, or else we immediately come in with 150,000 troops and destroy them ourselves"?

Aziz also says, ""We are becoming more and more forthcoming with them because it is in our interest..." when commenting on the weapons inspectors.

More and more forthcoming?

I thought you said you were cooperating fully three weeks ago. Does that mean, what was said three weeks ago was a lie? Must have been?

For those interested to read the CNN interview with Aziz, you will find it here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/15/sprj.irq.aziz.assisi/index.html

I can't help but think of Kosovo during all this. The Clinton Spin Doctors had the media reporting on the Human Rights Tragedy in Kosovo.

Where are the "human rights are being violated in Iraq" stories during this?

Nowhere to be seen.

Wonder why?

On another board I wrote about appeasement. Something that Europe did during Hitler's rise to power. And it seems it's happening again. At least Bulgaria is thinking...

"Solomon Pasi, Bulgaria's foreign minister, condemned the French as neo-appeasers. "We all remember the hesitancy of the Allies, who weren't sure whether to attack Hitler. They could have prevented so much," he said.

"We're in a situation where we have a moral imperative to act and act now.""

What do they get for their troubles?

"Last week the French ambassador to Sofia warned Bulgaria that its pro-American stance could jeopardise its efforts to join the European Union."

Good on ya, France. NOT!

See the full article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/16/wirq16.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/02/16/ixnewstop.html

And in my internet wondering with the question "Who Gains?" still flitterng about my head, I stumbled upon a "Peace March Report" by a guy who went to show support.

To quote:


in a parody beyond belief, a burly and aggressive young man wearing a "no fascists" tshirt appeared holding a U.S. flag upside down. When a passer-by told him he was holding the flag upside down, he let out a stream of profanity and spit on the flag several times. His other antics with the flag convinced me that a flag-burning no doubt was in store before the end of the rally.

I hope that the "evil corporate media" will represent fairly all aspects of the "peace" protesters. Most of the ones I spotted were virulently anti-Bush, anti-American and anti-free market.

This is no surprise, as the head group behind HCATW is ANSWER, an IAC sponsored group affiliated with the World Workers Party - a Marxist, Leninist front group. Just visiting their website was an eye opener for me, and it tells volumes about the true motives of the "peace" movement


Read the full "report" here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844311/posts

And from our Canadian friends I found this


Today is peace march day. Around the world, and especially across Europe, perhaps millions will march in solidarity with Saddam Hussein; while the people of Iraq continue to live under one of this world's most murderous and vicious dictatorships, glumly anticipating American liberation, but fearing they'll be let down once again.

Chic exponents of abortion on demand will accuse President George W. Bush of wanting to kill Iraqi babies; socialist proponents of public theft will accuse him of trying to steal Iraqi oil; and people whose safety and freedom have been guaranteed by U.S. military protection all their lives, will chant that "Amerika" is a fascist country.

It is a scene of human depravity, worthy of description by the Hebrew prophets.


You can read his full article, entitled "Peace advocates lead farcical parade" here:
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.asp?id={57E7969D-A438-4AD3-BDBB-4B038813CE9F}

And down in Australia, the Editorial in our weekend paper was a breath of fresh air... at least compared to the majority of "lefty" media reporting.


Taking sides in Crean's phony war

DESPITE his rhetoric, Opposition Leader Simon Crean is yet to properly define what he and the Labor Party exactly think about the Iraqi crisis.

He has spent the best part of two weeks trying to build a case that Prime Minister John Howard long ago committed Australia to side with the US in a so-called unilateral action against Iraq. His point was that without United Nations sanction and with permission of the Australian people, the PM had blindly charged ahead on an illegal and spurious campaign without justification.

Along the way, he and his shadow ministers roundly demonised US President George W. Bush for his hawkish actions and repeatedly pointed to the cautionary and 'sensible' attitude of China, France and Russia.

Two men scarcely received mention by Labor's men in the days of fiery parliament assauly - Saddam Hussein and Tony Blair.

One is the real villian of the piece and the other just happens to be of the same political persuasion as Mr Crean's team.

Bush was referred to by Labor 272 times - mostly dishonorably - and Blair, who happens to have backed Bush to the hilt, received a mere 24 times in the thousands of wor75 of the ALP's MPs and senators.

Could it be that British Labour, the party that has swapped notes with the ALP on election strategies, basic policy and pblic relations expertise for decades, is somehow above reproach even though he has been just as bellicose as George W. Bush?

A protected species perhaps?

Clearly, Simon Crean is going soft on Blair and is happy to lambast his own prime minister and George W Bush simply on the basis of political allegiance. Never mind the issue, if you are on the left side of politics, then that's equal to a pardon in Mr Crean's books.

But the hypocrisy doesn't end there.

Mr Crean's ultimate fall-back position is that Australia could go to war if the action was sanctioned by the United Nations. He has been most righteous about this, referring to the peace stance taken by China, Russia and France.

A little history study would tell Mr Crean that these nations, well known as the most enterprising and persistent arms suppliers of armies around the world, have routinely and maliciously undermined UN sanctions and weapons inspections for many years.

These are not natins that have peace in their hearts.

Mr Crean should expose then rather than laud them.

The puzzling aspect of he ALP criticism launched this week is where Mr Crean and his lieutenants actually stand.

For example, what is the practicle difference between a UN-sanctioned war and a war conducted by the US and the 'coalition of the willing'? Will less people be killed using the former? Will Saddam Hussein cave in faster if he is facing UN or US-sponsored bullets?

As will be evident through demonstrations and following UN weapons inspections report this weekend, Australia and the rest of the world are deeply divided about suporting or opposing strong action against Saddam's regime.

There is the coalition of the willing and the coalition of the unwilling.

And then there is the coalition of the don't knows, courtesy of Simon Crean.


Twelve years ago Iraq was given 90 days to disarm. Twelve years later, inspectors whose job is to verify the destruction of his weapons, have to play the role of investigator instead.

Twelve years and nothing has changed. Apeasement after appeasement.

How long does it have to be before enough is enough?

Iraq doesn't want UN peacekeepers or to destroy the weapons which have now been found to be in material breach. What makes anyone think they destroyed trheir old one's?

And any chance they will go with any "solution" you can come up with that sees Saddam removed from power?

Not likely. Let Hitler be a reminder of what appeasement does

This is a case of all or nothing.

Michael Ross

Hi,

Both sides can make good cases that their views are correct. Both sides are also transmitting a good-sized amount of "spin." I say this based on the large amount of time I spend reading news and current events. I keep up with what both sides are saying, and some of it is shocking and astounding.

History will show which side was "right."

Huge changes are coming. Fast.

What I want to know is, what's the best way to make money from the changes, the new trends?

Pragmatically yours,

- Boyd

Boyd,

Start buying flags, now.
:)

Also, I think that a lot of the peace demonstrators are young people who are peeved about missing their chance to play hippies and protest the Vietnam war and see this as their big chance.

Hi,

Who's Wal-Mart's flag supplier? (Hopefully it's an American company and not a Chinese one. I'll buy underwear with Disney characters on them that were made in Chinese sweatshops, but I want my American flags made in America!)

Best,

- Boyd

Hi,

Link is below...

Best,

- Boyd


More on this

> Marches across the planet indicate a great
> degree of planning. Small pockets of
> "anti-war" people could not
> coincidentally just happen to protest on the
> same day. And besides, some of these marches
> had HUGE numbers. Something requiring a
> great deal of planning. And to co-ordinate
> that on a world scale is something no
> back-yard peacenik could achieve by
> themselves.

These don't sound like neighborhood rallies. The numbers are absolutely amazing.

(However, reminds me, I did once saw a photo about a rally in America of citizens who supported a war on iraq and it was like half a dozen people meandering around a picnic table in a park)

I think for a lot of people around the world, it's coming down to not wanting another war. Period.

But for some people, that's not a real argument, and these people know that, so instead of saying that, they use the other reasons.

Also, I agree with what Boyd was saying. There is a lot of spin on both sides and everywhere in between.

-Erik

> These don't sound like neighborhood rallies.
> The numbers are absolutely amazing.

Not really. If you add up the total amount of people around the world who protested you come up with about .05% of the worlds population.
Besides, anyone outside of the U.S. who is protesting is of no significance.

Conservatives care ABOUT America while liberals only seem to care what others THINK and SAY about America.

>

> Not really. If you add up the total amount
> of people around the world who protested you
> come up with about .05% of the worlds
> population.

I don't think that's exactly the best way to calculate figures for rallies and protests (unless of course you're trying to downplay them)

> Besides, anyone outside of the U.S. who is
> protesting is of no significance.

No???

Success,

Erik Lukas

> I don't think that's exactly the best way to
> calculate figures for rallies and protests
> (unless of course you're trying to downplay
> them)

How so? .05% of the worlds population is .05% of the worlds population, whether you are trying to downplay or up-play it.

Sorry if this fact upsets you, but No matter how you cut it, less than 1% of the worlds population protested over the weekend.

> No???

Unless you care more about what others think and say about America than you actually care ABOUT America. : )

while some organizers may be motivated
by political views, there must be a
large segment that are 1) agents
of Iraq or 2) paid lackeys of Iraq.

Someone has footed the bill to organize
and to provide communication for a
million plus people.

I don't understand the sentimental and unrealistic view by some Americans of
Iraq. Ask yourself:

1. Is Saddam trying to develop weapons
of mass destruction including biological
and chemical weapons? The U.N. inspectors
report makes that answer yes (only how far
along he is in development is of debate).

2. Would Saddam use their weapons on the
United States? He's used weapons on the Kurds
and other dissidents. He hates the U.S. What
do you think?

3. Should we wait until we have chemical
attack on New York or take action now?

As far the silly suggestions that President
Bush is only motivated by greed for oil wells,
look around. The U.S. (led by first President Bush) didn't stay in Kuwait or take Iraq's oil wells. We're not drilling in Alaska's vast oilfields. If oil is the only motivation, why haven't we gone for the low-hanging fruit rather
than starting a war with Iraq?

Wake up and smell the coffee.