Anti War demo's this Saturday

Over Clocker · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:32

Originally posted by [TW]Fox
Who said it was in your name? It isnt in your name, stop thinking you are so important that the government would wage a war in your name.

You will acheive nothing but your pathetic protest. Give up and go home for some tea instead.

We are aware of your disaproval. There is no need to waste your time standing around, as it'll acheive nothing.

Five star post mate!

dirtydog · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:32

Who is responsible for the death of more Iraqi civilians.. us in the west, or Saddam?

The famous CBS anchorman Dan Rather told his prime-time audience: "There's one thing we can all agree on. It's the heroism of the 148 Americans who gave their lives so that freedom could live." What he omitted to say was that a quarter of them had been killed, like their British comrades, by other Americans. He made no mention of the Iraqi dead, put at 200,000 by the Medical Educational Trust. That American forces had deliberately bombed civilian infrastructure, such as water treatment plants, was not reported at the time. Six months later, one newspaper, Newsday, published in Long Island, New York, disclosed that three US brigades "used snow plows mounted on tanks to bury thousands of Iraqi soldiers - some still alive - in more than 70 miles of trenches".

The other day, both the Washington Post and the New York Times referred to Iraq without mentioning the million people now estimated to have died as a direct result of sanctions imposed, via the UN, by the United States and Britain. That, writes Brian Michael Goss of the University of Illinois, is standard practice. Goss examined 630 articles on sanctions published in the New York Times from 1996 to 1998. In those three years, just 20 articles - 3 per cent of the coverage - were critical of the policy or dwelt upon its civilian impact. The rest reflected the US official line, identifying 21 million people with Saddam Hussein. The scale of the censorship is placed in perspective by Professors John and Karl Mueller, of the University of Rochester. "Even if the UN estimates of the human damage to Iraq are roughly correct," they write, sanctions have caused "the deaths of more people in Iraq than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history."

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/47638

Markjcj · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:32

Originally posted by BuckEye
Tell that to the families of Iraqis killed by sanctions and the 12yrs of bombing we've put them through already. There's a whole lot more of those than ones killed by Saddam. I don't say Saddam is even vaguely nice, but we've done far more damage from the West.

S

Do you have figures from a quotable source to back that up? I'd love to see them.

From my perspective after speaking to a few Iraqi refugees who live not for from me I welcome this war, some of them have now got real hope that they will be able to return home in the future. With a regime change they will no longer be classed as dissidents. And to quote them they're hoping to find some of their family may still be alive, although they doubt it.

Lostie · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:33

Originally posted by BuckEye
Tell that to the families of Iraqis killed by sanctions and the 12yrs of bombing we've put them through already. There's a whole lot more of those than ones killed by Saddam. I don't say Saddam is even vaguely nice, but we've done far more damage from the West.

UN imposed sanctions do you mean? Do you disagree with the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations, the very same United Nations you anti-war activists want a second resolution for?

dirtydog · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:34

Originally posted by [TW]Fox
Who said it was in your name? It isnt in your name, stop thinking you are so important that the government would wage a war in your name.

The war is being waged in the name of all the British people!

dirtydog · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:34

Originally posted by Lostie
UN imposed sanctions do you mean? Do you disagree with the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations, the very same United Nations you anti-war activists want a second resolution for?

The US repeatedly blocked all efforts by other UN members to have the sanctions lifted or lessened! They were US sanctions in all but name.

Over Clocker · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:35

Originally posted by BuckEye
Tell that to the families of Iraqis killed by sanctions and the 12yrs of bombing we've put them through already. There's a whole lot more of those than ones killed by Saddam. I don't say Saddam is even vaguely nice, but we've done far more damage from the West.

S

Actually tell that to Saddm who used the Billions earmarked for humanitarian needs for his lavish palaces and weapons mate.

Windle · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:35

If i found an Anti-War supporter that won't still even at least support our troops as they go in i'll quite likely end up attacking them. The soldiers are only doing their jobs, maybe they dont support the war, maybe they do but their risking their lives for the safety of our country and shouldn't have to put up with Anti-War protestors shouting about the war is wrong. Even if you don't support the war, it is inevitable and you'd better support our troops :mad:

[TW]Fox · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:36

Originally posted by dirtydog
The war is being waged in the name of all the British people!

No it isn't.

Lostie · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:37

Originally posted by dirtydog
The US repeatedly blocked all efforts by other UN members to have the sanctions lifted or lessened! They were US sanctions in all but name.

Source? And I was talking about when the sanctions were imposed in the first place. Nevertheless, they were UN sanctions.

dirtydog · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:38

Originally posted by [TW]Fox
No it isn't.

Don't embarrass yourself.

Over Clocker · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:38

Originally posted by dirtydog
The US repeatedly blocked all efforts by other UN members to have the sanctions lifted or lessened! They were US sanctions in all but name.

And do you seriously think lifting the sanctions woudl increase money for humanitarian efforts in Iraq :rolleyes:

Don't embarass yourself. Please say you dont!

I have spoken to many Iraqi's who have very recently come over here, let me tell you one thing. Iraqi's are scared ****less of Saddam. If only you knew.

Sleepeh · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:40

How will leaving saddam in power promote peace in iraq?

A very good question asked by an iraqi disadent in the us on a talk show , he has family in iraq that maybe killed by a us led invasion , I think he has more knowledge and more at stake than any of us and he was pro war. If you can answer this honestly you will now the reasons behind the war.

The iraqi people are unable to remove saddam from power by themselves.

Its time for country's such as the UK to stand up and be counted , those bloomin wishey washey liberals would be a complete farce if they were in charge of the country.

dirtydog · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:41

Originally posted by Over Clocker
And do you seriously think lifting the sanctions woudl increase money for humanitarian efforts in Iraq

Please say you dont!

I have spoken to many Iraqi's who have very recently come over here, let me tell you one thing. Iraqi's are scared ****less of Saddam. If only you knew.

Of course I know ordinary Iraqis are terrified of and hate Saddam.

If the sanctions didn't hurt and target innocent civilians (against the Geneva convention) why were there no problems with deaths from impure water and cancer due to lack of drugs etc, before they were imposed?

- just noticed you changed your post to say 'dont embarrass yourself'

Over Clocker · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:45

Had to be done mate

But seriously. If sanction's aren't lifted as soon as Saddam is deposed, i will join you.

But as it stands, it would be like a free tivket to but shiny stuff (weapons!)

Mal

Tractor Man · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:47

If we placed some of the anti-war protestors in Iraq for a month or 2 i'm sure they would come back supporting a war. If they bothered to open their eyes and stop being so narrowminded they would realise what Saddam is doing to his people. Sure their are many other evil countries but every little helps to make the world a better place.

[TW]Fox · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:47

Originally posted by dirtydog
If the sanctions didn't hurt and target innocent civilians (against the Geneva convention) why were there no problems with deaths from impure water and cancer due to lack of drugs etc, before they were imposed?

Becuase it would be against Saddams interest to report stuff like this prior to imposition of sanctions.

dirtydog · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:49

I hope the war is over quickly, as few people die or are injured as possible, and Saddam is removed and replaced with a benign leader and the Iraqi people live happily ever after.. I don't think anyone on either side of the debate would argue with that, especially now that war is going to happen.

I believe the US is off the leash and represents the greatest danger to world peace and stability though, and none of us can sleep easily while a president like Bush is in power.

dirtydog · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:50

Originally posted by [TW]Fox
Becuase it would be against Saddams interest to report stuff like this prior to imposition of sanctions.

Blair has already admitted that our sanctions have killed thousands of civilians - nobody denies it.

Over Clocker · 19 Mar 2003 at 15:52

Originally posted by dirtydog
I hope the war is over quickly, as few people die or are injured as possible, and Saddam is removed and replaced with a benign leader and the Iraqi people live happily ever after.. I don't think anyone on either side of the debate would argue with that, especially now that war is going to happen.

here here

Anti War demo's this Saturday

Thug