Stories emerging today that anti-war protests are planned to co-incide with day one or two of the war. Plans to close federal buildings, disrupt traffic and shut down capitalist supporters of the war. (love that last one).

Those of you who are sincere in your stance against war, are you concerned about the motives of those you'll be out there with? Or is this another case of burying your head in the sand like NOW did when the felon in the white house was accused of rape?

The anarchists will be just one group using the 'anti-war' protest as a cover for their own sabotage. So will the communists, under a new name naturally.

Does this bother you at all? Any of you?

The reason why it doesn't bother me is because there is no way that anarchy or Communism will ever overtake the US, they just don't pose as a threat to spread their ideals.

CP

What are you rambling on about? Protests, Communists, or wild rape accusations?

First of all, I hardly consider two sentences rambling . Second of all, I have no idea what you mean by what you just said.

CP

Unsubstantiated stories bother me more...

I think it is unreasonable to expect people to debate something that may not even exist. Could you provide us with any of these stories to which you refer?

I'm sorry, was there something you wanted to add to the discussion?

Musing - one more chance - give us something REAL to debate or I close this.

You may start with today's Phila Inquirer and work you way on from there.

You may start with today's Phila Inquirer and work you way on from there


Ok - but a link would be nice

Actually the only thing that really bothers me here is baseless and ignorant blanket statements.

The only thing that bothers me about the black bloc groups protesting is that it gives the sensationalist media and narrow-minded changeophobes (to coin a term) another piece of empty, so called "evidence" that progressive liberals are really satan worshippers with sickle-and-hammer armbands, out to destroy the "American way."

No blanket statements. There are many people who protest with honorable intent. They are either anti-war, of any kind. or they dont think the case has been made for this war. I dont agree, but I respect their beliefs.

My point was that they are in the minority at these events and are being used. I have seen this up close and there is no doubt in my mind. I imagine some who post here were at the most recent marches and will post their own observations.

Even though I believe it is dangerous to our country and our troops to protest in the streets in a time of war, I do believe that some who do have the best interests of the country at heart.

Do you believe the millions of people who protested, from granny's to Viet Nam vets, were somehow coerced into protesting? Did the looneys seek these people out and talk them into protesting by false claims and harrasment?

Do you believe this only about American protestors or the millions all over the world? Is this some Communist, left wing consipiracy that brought these people out of their homes? Why is it so hard for you to accept that there are several valid reasons that people chose to do this other than trying to console yourself by saying they must be brainwashed, hippies, radicals, or worse?

I have never protested any military conflict before this one...not Kosovo, not Afgahnistan and not Gulf 1. I don't remember any world wide record breaking protestors in those wars either. Just the usually suspects you are assuming are protesting now.

Musing,

My biggest fear from the present situation is that some people will be musing about half-baked conspiracy theories of secret organizations working to undermine America with a fifth column effort to dupe a bunch of less dangerous leftist supposed idiots into following along blindly on a scheme to hurt the government while these "innocent" type protesters think they are using their first amendment rights to protect their vision of the country.

This might make some right wing extremists come out claiming to be in the middle of American public opinion and spout out McCarthyist accusations against anyone who speaks out against the message of the president.

Your thread is using the tactics of Jospeh McCarthy. You present no facts, insinuate that speaking out against the president and his war plans is unamerican, and then call the previous president a felon.

Musing,

My biggest fear from the present situation is that some people will be musing about half-baked conspiracy theories of secret organizations working to undermine America with a fifth column effort to dupe a bunch of less dangerous leftist supposed idiots into following along blindly on a scheme to hurt the government while these "innocent" type protesters think they are using their first amendment rights to protect their vision of the country.

All you need do is look at what many of the groups organizing these protests are all about and you will see that 'half-baked' fails to accurately describe this loaf of bread.

This might make some right wing extremists come out claiming to be in the middle of American public opinion and spout out McCarthyist accusations against anyone who speaks out against the message of the president.

I'm sure that may happen, but most are much more discerning than many of their opponents.

Your thread is using the tactics of Jospeh McCarthy. You present no facts, insinuate that speaking out against the president and his war plans is unamerican, and then call the previous president a felon.

The facts are there for all to see. You must be willing to open your eyes first. There was no insinuation, it is unamerican to take to the streets as our country goes to war. The previous president is a felon.

Danya,Mar 2 2003, 11:11 PM]Do you believe the millions of people who protested, from granny's to Viet Nam vets, were somehow coerced into protesting?

No

Did the looneys seek these people out and talk them into protesting by false claims and harrasment?

No. The 'looneys' were in the majority.

Do you believe this only about American protestors or the millions all over the world? Is this some Communist, left wing consipiracy that brought these people out of their homes?

I have only discussed protests here at home. They are the ones that I care about and am familiar with. They are the ones that undermine this great nation in a time of war. They are the ones that endanger the security of our troops.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that there are several valid reasons that people chose to do this

I have said repeatedly that some have pure motives, but they are in the minority.


other than trying to console yourself by saying they must be brainwashed, hippies, radicals, or worse?

You have provided but a small sampling of those that make up the majority of the protests.

I have never protested any military conflict before this one...not Kosovo, not Afgahnistan and not Gulf 1.


I don't remember any world wide record breaking protestors in those wars either. Just the usually suspects you are assuming are protesting now.

Being counted among those that hate America abroad is not something to be proud of, which is how the protests here at home are viewed by the enemy.

I have attended numerous marches and protests, as have my sister who protested against the G-8 summit in Quebec and the Summit of the Americas by marching in Ottawa. In all of our experiences we've only seen a handful of protesters (in proportion to the body of people) present. They are just the most visible. In my sister's march in Ottawa there was no media coverage on the first day; but on the second a group of about 8 anarchists started beating up a police car and all of a sudden the cameras showed up.

My own experience with anarchist protesters took place in Dec 1999, in the 'Battle in Seattle'. The WTO protests. This group was a die hard core of anarchists from Eugene, OR. They trekked up from their commune to Seattle for this little shindig, as they do frequently, for they are professional protesters. This group made no secret that their sole intention was to destroy as much 'corporate' property as possible and spread violence and chaos. This according to Seattle and Eugene newspaper interviews with members, I'll try and dig up links.
People like these types give a bad rap to groups who I'm sure have the best intentions to try and change public and government opinion. But protest organizers simply have to break all ties with anarchists, or their message will not likely be taken seriously by the public.

MM,

I am very curious as to why this subject is almost a fixation with you. What protest were you at? You claim to have firsthand knowledge. I've shown you mine, now show me yours.

DTOM,

What's the average pay for a professional protester? With the economy the way it is, any and all career paths are fair game

MM,

Thank you for insinuating my motives are somehow suspect in this. It only shows how narrow minded and wrong you are about this issue.

I did not vote for Bush, I do not trust him in this matter with my money and my family members fighting over there. He has shown no desire to do things any other way than what he has led us to today. He is a bad leader and must be voted out or impeached but somehow he must go and soon.

He is the threat to this country not the protestors whom he chooses to ignore rather than accept that it is his failure to communicate if they are wrong.

I don't see much point in discussion with someone who has no interest in what is going on outside of our own country and what causes contribute to the unrest going on right here. All you are interested in is silencing your countrymen so that Bush can lead us to more unrest and terrorism.

This reminds me of McCarthy-era "guilt by association". I don't care a whole heck of a lot about why other people oppose the war. My own opposition is based on my own knowledge of the facts, of strategy, economics, international relations, etc. Does agreeing with someone on one matter out of thousands link you to them forever? Remember, the US used to support Iraq and still does support Saudi Arabia. Does that make us 100% complicit in every thing that they do? Life's more complicated than that.

Danya, nothing in my post questioned your personal motives. To the contrary, I believed your motives were pure but incredibly naive.

However, your defensive posture begs the question. Are you beginning to question them yourself?

Musing, perhaps I can put some personal observations into this thread. First, given your political bent, I doubt you have attended many protest marches, at least not without a very jaundiced view. I have attended protests, and I have helped organize a number of protests.

Though sometimes the Black Bloc folks show up (to the really big ones), and there are sometimes members of the Communist Party USA there (who by the way advocate a socialist platform, which makes sense if you've studied up on Communism at all), there are a couple of areas in which your statements just don't match the facts.

1. While organizing with the Green Party, we have never made any plans in collusion with Anarchists or Communists. You have to remember, a protest is not really "organized" or "sponsored" in any strict sense. We would place posters around town advertising that a protest against war, or for a living wage, or against Bush, but when the protest starts, it's not like there's any screening of the participants. If there is a speaker, they advocate non-violent protest and civil disobedience, not rioting. A protest, like any large group of people, can encompass a minority who do want to commit violence. I have never, in all the time I have been an activist, been to a protest where the majority of the protesters "hated America," or were Communists, or were Anarchists.

2. When the media covers protests, I have seen them time and again seek out the most sensationalist and idiotic protesters to interview for the "news at six." The rest of us inevitably roll our eyes when the news coverage shows some idiot with a half-baked ideology. Or a half-naked rainbow mud person tripped out on LSD, singing and dancing. I've noticed that when they do interview rational people who have a cogent understanding of the issues, it hardly ever makes the news. But we are the majority, I promise you.

As for your statement that it is unamerican to take to the streets when our country goes to war, where do you get off deciding what is and isn't American? Where does it say this in the constitution? You repeat it like it's a fact, but you ought to be more clear that yours is an opinion. You say, "you just have to open your eyes," and then you'll be enlightened to your "truth." This tactic is used by religious zealots who have nothing but faith to fall back upon in a theological discussion. It's a great way to stop an argument, sort of like saying, "when you get to be my age, you'll see the truth of it," but it's no way at all to put forth interesting and/or convincing debate.

I hold to two strong definitions of who are patriots in America.

The first is those who serve in our armed forces. They are willing to fight, and perhaps to die, in the service of their country.

The second is those who turn a critical and skeptical eye to the government, and who do not merely sit back and accept what is handed to them as Gospel Truth. This was the intent of those who framed our constitution. This person is not partisan about government; she does not accept the word of the Democrats when they are in office, and protest the Republicans. He does not dissent against the Demacrats and accept the word of the Republicans. A patriot must always be critical, rational, questioning - why, how, who, where, when. A patriot studies history, economics, political science, because a patriot is aware and involved in the governing of the people, by the people, and for the people.

quark, you present a reasoned response. I may have made a mistake about discussing protest marches in the first place. . I am not at liberty to go into detail about my knowledge of such rallies. Suffice it to say I've attended more such rallies than you can imagine and have viewed most of the rest. I have formed an opinion, an informed one, and I will leave it at that.

I am having a dickens of a time with the mechanics of this message board or I'd provide a link to a couple 'sources' regarding plans for protests during day one or two of the war. If I can figure out how to work this thing I will post them later.

As to my stance on un-American, we'll have to agree to disagree. I stand firm in my belief that when we are at war, it is un-American to publicly protest against our policy.

Musing:


By this statement, I can think of two opposite things: that your experience with political activism is either from the point of view of someone secretly trying to agitate armed insurrection against the government, which given your posts in general I highly doubt (or is it all part of THE PLAN!!), or of an undercover agent out to infiltrate the former folks.

Either way, I still see it as a jaundiced view towards protests specifically, and towards activism in general. I will respect your right to not speak about why you attend protests (though it does sound rather ominous.

And if you are an agent, um, that one time, at the WTO protests in DC, you know, with the thing, and that other thing, um, that was definitely not me. I was never there. These are not the droids you're looking for...

If the looney's were in the majority and you state I am sincere but in the majority you are calling me a sincere looney.

You are entitled to the opinion that my view's are nothing to be proud of. Just as I feel the actions of our country in this matter is nothing to be proud of is my entitled opinion.

I question everything and have an open mind. My opinions are subject to change with the situation. Or possibly with any new or previously secret information Bush deems kind enough to share with the poor, blind, irrelevent public of America, Congress, or the other world leaders that agree with my position.

Unless you work in the pentagon, some high level security position in government, know Bush's people personally, know Saddam personally, or are some other kind of specialist in this area I highly doubt I'm less informed than you are in this issue. But since that's a common thing for the war-camp to say about dissenters I really believe it just means you have run out of facts or rebuttals to facts and want to dismiss the other ideas as naive, uninformed, crazy and leftist, or the other blanket statements your so fond of.

Whoa Whoa Whoa. Since when is it unamerican to protest what the government does? Thats a protected right. I would say that it is more unamerican to try to sensor these people who take to the streets.

Sorry I am quoting from such an old post on this topic, it just hit me emotionally when I saw it.

MM


Shiver me timbers, I smells a cop-out!

I want your links though. Click "Guided Mode" in the upper left corner of the posting page, click http:// and paste your link in the popup. Click OK and type in a name for the link in the next popup. Click OK.

BTW, I know of ONE peace rally you weren't at

Musician and quark, someday I'd like to meet you two at a rally. You both seem like the kinda guys I could sit down and chat with.

Let's make it after the war though.

Chewing the fat and shooting some dung might be fun.

Where are the links, dude?

I hope I got this to work. If so....

There was also a story at an internet site that I was skeptical of. Decided not to link, but can't find it now anyway! Hey...I'm getting there.

Take note of two things. The 'anything that it takes' quote from ANSWER and the actions meant to disrupt US forces that have already taken place overseas.

here

All I see from this Post article is a spokesperson from ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) discussing civil disobedience. I've known some guys from ANSWER; they are hard core activists, and the organization has been instrumental in organizing. Peacefully. Civil disobedience.



Now you may see these actions as tantamount to treason or sedition, but I respectfully do not. But if your reaction is any indication of the way in which civil disobedience is being viewed by the Washington power structure, we could end up with another Haymarket, and that really scares me. We're already seeing a trend of increasingly brutal suppression tactics when it comes to police dealing with protesters. Will this continue until our government is once again fighting a war on two fronts? One abroad, one against the people of the United States? I should go further. They are already at war against the good people of this country, and specifically against the millions of peaceable immigrants to this once open society.

The U.S. had a chance to lead the world into a brighter future. We are a nation, the first in history of it's size and scope of power and culture, that was founded on principles of equality of opportunity, civil rights, and individual worth and justice. Yet many people feel that we are falling for the same old trap, the trap of empire and colonialism. Yet the sense of freedom, the power of social justice, once tasted and given, is impossible to retract. People will fight to keep it.

This broad movement, encompassing (so-called) antiglobalization, workers rights, living wages, and anti-war, among others, is so much bigger than just a simple "stop the war" thing. A century ago, the largest peoples' movement in history began. Yes, it was socialism. And however socialism played out (badly) when co-opted by statist autocrats, we should remember that it was primarily a movement of everyday people who fought tooth and nail to achieve so much: restrictions on working hours, child labour laws, minimum wage, workplace safety; all are ingrained into the minds of minds of most people as quintessential American ideals. And yet today, as corporatism replaces the statism of the cold war, we are seeing an attack on all these things. The peoples' movement today is fighting to keep these preciously paid for milestones, and fight ferociously they will.

This movement is about social justice and governance based on human rights and freedom. It will not be stopped. And I say this, not only as a member of this movement, but as a student of history and even spirituality. Those in the power structure, many of whom are good people, need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. This (almost) war isn't really about Saddam Hussein, and likewise, this movement isn't just about stopping said war. On both sides there are far bigger issues at hand, and the outcome could well define the foreseeable future of our planet.

Interesting story! Is this what you mean by "anarchists," MM? A movement that has no leadership?

If this is mob mentality, then it really is the first time a mob decided to do something somewhat organized worldwide, stay peaceful 99% of the time, and continue efforts toward a common goal.

However you feel about the demonstraters, you have to admit that this hasn't happened before. It is new history.

I agree. I may support the war but I also support the right of those who oppose it, to protest. Protesting is American, not un-American.

Well the difference is these people in Europe are actually coming out and saying what party they are from. I saw a good amount of people in the protest in Germany carrying Socialist umbrellas, they had the socialist logo on their clothes and umbrellas, this is not speculation, it is the truth.

CP

most protests I've seen anarchists at they come out and openly admit their "party". they are the ones carrying either red and black flags (split diagonally) this is the flag of anarcho-syndicalism, or they are carrying a plain black flag, or a black flag with an anarchist "A" (see my avatar) they are very often dressed in black wearing masks (to show solidarity and hide their ID's)

personally I am all for self defense, which is not a violent act. when the cops start indiscriminantly attacking and arresting demonstrators, we should defend ourselves. "self defense is not a violent act. it is a violent act to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant target of attacks" the amount of anarchists at a given event depends strongly on the purpose of it. they tend to go to anti capitalist events, and any where they can oppose authority.

MM, before you start knocking anarchy, perhaps you should learn about it here first.

This was taken from a Phila Inquirer story in today's edition about an anti-war rally here.

I sincerely hope that if this country ever suffers another terrorist attack, people like this are the only ones to fall victim.

Media interviews with our troops are on the rise as we move closer to battle and virtually every one of them contains questions about how they feel about the protests at home. Listen carefully to those brave men and women as they respond.

Yes, your protests are having an impact on the looming war. You are helping to send our troops into the line of fire with less than the absolute highest morale possible. It's akin to removing a round or two from their ammunition clip.

I hope you can live with that.

I sure can. I wish every soldier in the coming conflict well but I can't sit here and just swallow what I KNOW is right because somebody who put themselves in the line of fire may think. That you would suggest otherwise is baffling considering how patriotic you consider yourself.

MM,

The person making the decision to put our soldiers there is the one responsible for their morale. I fully support our soldiers in Afgahnistan and have even sent care packages at Christmas time through drives.

I cannot and willnot be responsible for the actions of this administration. Trying to bully people into silence is unbecoming of an American. It is shameful that our troops are being sent into a war that half of it's own people and 90% of the world opposes. They should not be used this way and Bush should pay for this horrible mistake. He is the one that brought this on himself, our soldiers, and our country. We are all responsible for our own words and actions right now.

Some of us are disgusted and embarrassed at the kind of warmongering and hateful rhetoric coming from some groups here in the U.S. towards each other and towards our foreign allies. And yet, none of us try to force you and your beliefs into silence. Why would you fear any voice of dissent if you have truth on your side?

IMO, if our fears are baseless and complaints unwarrented you have nothing to worry about and should ignore us. But if we cause you to feel the desire to restrict and repress our speech you must have a need to hide or fear truth and don't seem confident that it's on your side.

Their morale is the responsibility of all of us.

As for the 90% of the world, care to back-up that claim? Or is it just in your world, which I wouldn't dispute for a second.

MM,



Agreed. So, were you at any support the troops rallies yesterday?

Nothing happened in Colorado Springs that I am aware of. I would have covered that event too, BTW, and I expected to see something happening due to the heavy military base presence here.

You keep confusing the criticism of policy with the criticism of troops. Did you know that a lot of "support the troops" signs were at the CS rally?

We have come a long ways since Pickett's charge in the Civil War. The Charge of the Light Brigade will never happen to US troops. Why?

Because we fight Third Wave style, not Second Wave. Each of our soldiers is a highly trained, thinking professional who has the best of our high-tech at his or her disposal. If a thinking professional has doubts about the direction in which his or her energies are being directed, of course morale will suffer.

However, don't just blame worldwide protest and the reluctance of allies to support the effort. You need to place a good deal of the blame on the CEO too. Clarity of mission and intent is up to him.

I strongly agree with the intent of the above quote. But for hair splitting, the failure in leadership in this case is not the lack of a clarity of mission but really of a simplified excess of it.

Our leadership has failed to convince America of the connection of Hussein to 9-11, of the immediacy of need to solve this problem, and that we have indeed gotten down to our last alternative. Because of this a significantly large percentage of the population has grave doubts and concerns about our present course of action.

I will be at our support rally at Valley Forge next weekend, thanks for asking.

I don't confuse the nature of the protests. I realize you are not rallying against the troops themselves. But I fear it is not always taken that way by those who are charged with carrying out the mission.

I don't object to the objections, only to how that message gets carried to our troops.

Finally, some very interersting news today. I'm searching for the right thread to discuss it.

See you there!

MM,

By gosh, there was a support the troops march in downtown CS on Sunday!

Dang, none of my sources gave a heads-up. I had to catch it on the evening news.

A couple of quotes in that report caught my ear. One woman said something about the anti-peace rally that got gassed.

Anti-peace? Now that was a Freudian slip!

The more poignant quote came from a Vietnam vet, who said that he not only supports the President, but would go to war all over again--in order that his children would not have to go.

Put the two together, and you get the message loud and clear: This war is necessary to avoid future war. I'm willing to buy that, but I sure would like to know more details about the future after the war in Iraq. What are the grand visions? Any publications out there regarding this?

I had little doubt it would come to this. Forewarned is forearmed and you'll see no sympathy from me if it happens.



full story

MM,

One little piece of information is missing from the AP story.

Just who are these people threatening to trespass and destroy stuff?

Any links to their Web site(s)?

Or are these simply straw people put up to make a story?

I don't know. Nobody is talking.

Meanwhile, CS police will be more careful with gassing people:

No More Tears

This article does contain names. It states that the police have alternatives to use. It also brings up the arrest of 12 people at a Dairy Queen--for wearing peace buttons.

I suppose another Kent State will happen, and be covered up or excused--only to be revealed much later that indeed deadly force was used improperly.

From what I see and hear, this is mostly what is going on. Almost every person in this country was deeply hurt and saddened by 9/11. Bush rose up to the charge, took control, and almost single-handedly, kept this country together. Him and Gulianni were beacons of strength we really needed at that time.

Nobody had much of a beef of going to Afghanistan and opening a can of Whoop-a$$ on the Taliban. The entire world was behind that part of the TRUE war on terror. 90% of every country in the world supported us.

Then, he took advantage of the situation to settle a score. Iraq has not attacked us. Iraq does not have our border surrounded ready to strike us. Out of the 100's of terrorist attacks thwarted since 9/11, no Iraqis or Iraqi connection. The connection between Saddam and Al Qaida is completely bogus.

Many of this country have caught on to this sham and most of the world outside of our borders has. I have never talked to one person that did not want to invest in and win our war on terror.

Maybe Bush should have won the war against terror first so he could have a new war called "The war against potential terror". After that, we could have had a war called "The war against monsterous dictators". The list could be never-ending.

If 9/11 never happened, Bush may not be playing this Iraq fiasco half bad. It would be dragging Iraq kicking and screaming into compliance, but it would be compliance. The problem is, 9/11 happened. The true threats have attacked us and continue to try to attack us. But instead of putting all our resources into fighting what's real, we're putting them into a hypothetical.

I, like many of my fellow Americans, are not anti-war. We're anti-invading-and-occupying-a-country in the name of terrorism. If Bush could PROVE a clear, viable threat from any country (like Korea), nobody would stop him and only the true pacifying appeasers would protest.




I DID vote for Bush. And I agree with that statement. I knew Bush would put politics over principle when he ok'd the steel tarrifs, signed the CFR bill knowing it was probably unconstitutional, and granted amnesty to illegals. But I figured then that, hey, to get this country moving in the right direction, we need to give and take. So, I grudgenly supported him.

The honeymoon is over. Where are we now?

Blair, our biggest ally is all but out of a job. The UN is probably broken beyond repair. The world community has fully turned on us. Bush and his administration have zero foreign policy skills. The world responds to diplomacy...not to hardball and bribery. We are in an era where we need the best foreign policy skills available to us. we don't have them. The world has become a much worse place because of Bush's pre-occupation with Iraq.

Lastly, the economy is still in shambles (Obviously, he inherited that mess, but it is heading back to recession again. And this is with Republicans in both the house and Senate). There is no end in sight right now. He's become part of the problem since then...not the solution.

Bush is not the person for this job and I feel badly for voting for him. I hoped for the best when he's gone wobbly, but his obsession with invading a country who is a hypothetical problem is driving us and the world into the ground. He needs to go and I would support gathering a "coalition of the willing" (using his term) to get it done.

In the end, Saddam has won. The Arab community has become more solidly united against us.

Plus let's just be real here.

So Bush's evidence has been forged, faked, or just plain untrue. And what am I refering to?

1. Poision Plant: BBC went there as well as other freelance reporters and found a food preparation place.

2. Iraq Uranium Transactions and papers: Complete FORGED documents. The FBI is investigating this one.

3. Al Quieda and Saddam are linked: NOT PROVEN nor is there any hidden evidence that Bush choses not to show
(US Official stated that) Its pro-war propaganda.

4. Not Complying: Blix and other weapon inspectors say they ARE, and it will only take MONTHS, not years to compete their task! And they are the ones doing the job! Not our war-hungery president.

5. New Iraqi "Bomblet" weapon found. MSNBC was the only website who ran this story, and I have yet to find ANY verfiable proof. This could be marked up as proganda.

6. NPR had a story on friday about another leaked government document which states all that Bush stated is his press conference about starting democracy in Iraq and watching it spread and how it would be good for the area is completely FALSE. Just more war proganda to get the unquestioning "follow the leader" Americans to walk off that cliff.

So, whether or not Saddam has weapons of mass destruction we have seen lies, deciet, and forged documents from our own government! And NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING proving his case!

Sorry, but you add those facts up together and something really SHADY is going on! And it doesn't take a ROCKET scientist to figure that out.

As I stated many times before if possitive REAL proof came forth found by the weapon inspectors ( after this barrage of fake garbage from our government I don't trust them anymore ) I would be all for attacking, but the facts are there isn't.

Oh and about the ones who state "Well Afghanistan was attacked and we didn't get any resource outta that" well before the attack Bush was trying to negotiate an oil pipeline to run through Afghanistan. The Taliban said no. They are gone and guess what project is well underway?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nts22404.htm

Once again FACT. Something fishy is in the state of Denmark, or should I say the Bush regime?

I'm sure we addressed this same claim in another thread but...


Blix has not claimed Iraq is complying, in fact Blix has said that Iraq is not in compliance with the resolutions.
As for the Months claim

Full text: Blix briefing
Blix clearly qualified the months claim with the condition that outside pressure be maintained and Iraq cooperate proactively with inspections which they have so far refused to do.

Iraq is not in compliance, not one has claimed it is except Iraq itself.

Um...yeah..they showed reporters what they WANT them to see...nothing




Actually, Fox News got it too: Fox News' catch on the story

I'm sure NYtimes & WashTimes & the Chicago sun got it too

as for proof that they are banned, i haven't heard Blix confirm nor deny their status either.




This is a lie? Undeclared Chemical Warheads Found

On the Iraqi's part it is!




So what? Business is Business. It's good for both economies.

I find it awfully ironic that we will render the UN irrelevant, but choose to use their resolutions as justification to invade another country.

The rest of the world believes they can resolve the Iraq problem peaceably. Iraq is not the only one violating UN resolutions. Iraq is not the only country that oppresses their people. Iraq is not the only country possessing WMD. Iraq is not the only country that has used WMD during war.

However, Iraq is the only country actively destroying weapons and the technology that give them the ability to make war.

The protests are concerned citizens looking for reasonable solutions.