posted on March 28, 2003 05:43:02 PM new
donny - Thank you. And I do understand your point more clearly now. But you don't give me enough credit when you ask:
But have you? Because the larger truth is that other disparate groups, such as Quakers, Veterans Groups, and relatives of 9-11 victims have also joined together under this umbrella, temporarily, for this one purpose.
Because my answer would be yes, I have. When the subject of who was financing/backing [not just protesting] the anti-war rallys first came up, and I did my 'searches' for more information. I did, on a couple of sites, see the names you mention in your above paragraph. But I am quite capable of seeing those same names that you mention. And I, as a grown adult don't in any way believe that those people [Quakers, etc] present a threat to my form of government.
But, it's my belief that the majority are not out just to say NO to this war. There are many agendas being honored there, and most are, imo, anti-American. Yes, there are a few who are there only to protest this one war. Agree that rarely is anything 100%.
I might feel they're [Quakers, etc] misguided and maybe aren't thinking about how not supporting our country's stance looks to the world and those like Saddam who brags about it. I would bet their signs didn't say 'shoot our troops' and things along those lines either. I would place a bet their signs only spoke to the issue of 'no war'....'not I hate everything about America'....like a lot of those marchers do.
But I do feel a real threat from the groups who are actively working to change our form of government. And to casually dismiss that as not being true, is to put blinders on. They make money from these rallys....selling their goods. They're in all the protests lists of organizers, they travel the world working at starting disent...promoting their agendas...not because they care about this war at all, but to further their own agenda.
So, as a thinking adult, the Quakers etc aren't anywhere near the same 'catagory' I put the others in.
Every decision we make as adults, every position we hold, every experience we've gone through in our lives helps to form our beliefs and political leanings. Donny, I'm not one that will just hear a 'story' and take it to be truthful [at full value]. If I say it, it's because that's the opinion I've formed....just like everyone else does.
posted on March 28, 2003 07:40:19 PM new
Well, I knew before I took us off on that tangent that you think that anti-war speech is mis-guided, and we already knew that I think religious speech is mistaken. When do we get to the point where you vigorously defend the rights of people to speech you don't agree with?
posted on March 29, 2003 07:19:53 AM new
Mornin' - When do we get to... just as soon as I see anyone's right to their free speech is being violated. I'll defend it with all the vigor this old body has to give.
posted on March 29, 2003 08:02:19 AM new
Morning aposter - From your article...[generate support for humanitarian relief for the citizens of Iraq. The US, UK and other countries ARE working to get this relief in to Iraq. Have you seen the news reports where the Iraqi government has planted mines, has been firing on the troops who are working to get this relief to the people of Iraq?
They have little, if any, regard for their peoples lives or health. Just read another article this morning that I found interesting. There have been many here who have blamed the US [UN] sanctions for being responsible for the deaths of Iraqi's. In one of the places our coalition forces got control of, were medicines meant for the Iraqi children...to prevent worms they get...just laying there...unused. Here these medical supplies are right there, but they aren't been given to those who they were intended for.
posted on March 29, 2003 08:17:10 AM new
Linda. You really are here alot, you jumped right on my entry. But, you didn't even have time to read the whole page, much less the letter did you?
It is nice to see you have such freedom of speech. Maybe you can help those in the last paragraphs below?
From what my (ex)minister said church leaders from many churches, included Mr. Bushs, protested going to war. That is why so many protestors were leaders and members from various congregations. Did you get those pictures, or didn't Fox and CNN carry it?
==============
Linda_K posted on March 29, 2003 07:19:53 AM:
Mornin' - When do we get to... just as soon as I see anyone's right to their free speech is being violated. I'll defend it with all the vigor this old body has to give. ]Mornin' - When do we get to... just as soon as I see anyone's right to their free speech is being violated. I'll defend it with all the vigor this old body has to give.
Linda_K: Maybe it is time to use your ole body to write to Florida, CNN and Fox about freedom of speech?
Sarandon is a well-known campaigner
A US charity has cancelled an event featuring actress Susan Sarandon because of her anti-war views. The United Way group in Tampa Bay, Florida, had invited the actress, who has spoken out against the war in Iraq, to an event on women and volunteering to be held on 11 April.
But the group, which promotes community action and volunteering schemes, had begun to receive complaints about her involvement.
United Way of Tampa Bay chairwoman Robin Carson said the event had the potential to become "divisive".
"The focus of our whole meeting had shifted to whether or not we were creating a political platform for Susan Sarandon," she said.
"That is not our purpose. That's not what we're about."
A statement from the group added: "We have enormous respect for the diversity of ideas and the principles of free speech, but United Way of Tampa Bay's intent is to unify the diversity of thought that brings the community together."
Together with husband Tim Robbins, Sarandon has been one of the United States' leading voices against military action in Iraq.
Last month she shared a platform with South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu at a 100,000-strong anti-war rally in New York.
She was an award presenter at the Oscars on Sunday, where she gave a peace sign to the audience but did not speak out against the war.
Meanwhile, anti-war groups in the US say their advertisements are being blocked by the country's broadcasters. CNN, Fox, MTV, and Comedy Central, turned down spots featuring celebrities like Susan Sarandon talking with "experts" about war issues, said one group, TrueMajority.org, while other groups also complained about being refused airtime.
posted on March 29, 2003 08:26:23 AM newIt is blatantly false to say, "They have little, if any, regard for their peoples lives or health."
Helen So, Helen....you take this to be false. You read and hear all these reports about how they're using their people as 'human shields', shooting their own people, not allowing humanitarian aid to get to their people and you see this as blatantly false? Maybe you could show me where you see HOW they are treating their people so well.
posted on March 29, 2003 08:42:20 AM new
aposter - did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? You really are here alot Is there a limit as to how often one can be here? I wasn't aware of it. And maybe you'd like to ask others who are also here, as often as I, the same question? Probably won't.
you jumped right on my entry. But, you didn't even have time to read the whole page, much less the letter did you? Are you physic? I clicked on your first link and read the whole thing. Did I do it too quickly for your approval? Your second link wasn't posted at that time.
It is nice to see you have such freedom of speech. I agree and enjoy it fully. I have the same freedom of speech that you do. My disagreeing with almost everything the anti-war people give as their reasons for protesting this war, in NO WAY supresses your freedom to speech.
Maybe you can help those in the last paragraphs below? I don't see them as needing my help. Maybe you could take your suggestion and do it yourself.
I said to Donny: When do we get to... just as soon as I see anyone's right to their free speech is being violated. I'll defend it with all the vigor this old body has to give.
Then you point out that a: [i]Charity rejects anti-war star. Sarandon is a well-known campaigner
A US charity has cancelled an event featuring actress Susan Sarandon because of her anti-war views[/i]. Well known and well disagreed with...some find her anti-American, as do I.
This is a right any organization has, to invite to speak anyone they wish. This doesn't and hasn't kept Susan Sarandon from practicing her right to free speech. That's like you telling me I have a right to go into a mosque and start practicing my freedom of speech by saying I think they they should all go home. Some places wouldn't allow that sort of thing either.
I am getting tired of your constant off the wall posts such as this one. Do you really believe that only Americans care about their lives, their families and their country? Who led you to believe this nonsense? Even communists love their families, Linda.
They are trying to survive, Linda. They know that we will not shoot their human shields. The humanitarian crisis has been caused by the United States. We have bombed their water supply, roads, communication facilities and electricity. What a disaster we have created. NOW, you want to know why we can't deliver supplies to them...like the pizza man, perhaps. Give me a break. The mines were defensive...NOT to prevent humanitarian aid.
Under the circumstances, they are treating their people as well as they can. It's really strange that you feel so strongly that we should liberate these people yet you have such a low opinion of their nature.
I'm not spending the day arguing with you and your nutty ideas.
posted on March 29, 2003 09:00:28 AM new
Maybe I should call you anti-humanity since you have such little regard for those people living outside your little corner of the world.
posted on March 29, 2003 09:24:20 AM new
copying the anti-american statements made, before they get edited.
It is blatantly false to say, "They have little, if any, regard for their peoples lives or health." Helen
The humanitarian crisis has been caused by the United States. We have bombed their water supply, roads, communication facilities and electricity. What a disaster we have created.
Under the circumstances, they are treating their people as well as they can.
Maybe I should call you anti-humanity since you have such little regard for those people living outside your little corner of the world.
Uhhh...no, that would mean you're confused again. I'm the one FOR the humanitarian supplies getting through to the people. And I'm the one questioning why the Iraqi military would be working to prevent their own people from getting the supplies they need. And as to outside my little [heavenly] corner of the world....my heart is in Iraq right now...supporting our troops....wishing they weren't being shot at, killed and injured by the Iraqi military. Wishing they weren't holding their own people hostage, wishing they weren't using their own people as human shields.
posted on March 29, 2003 09:38:58 AM new"Uhhh...no, that would mean you're confused again. I'm the one FOR the humanitarian supplies getting through to the people. And I'm the one questioning why the Iraqi military would be working to prevent their own people from getting the supplies they need. And as to outside my little [heavenly] corner of the world....my heart is in Iraq right now...supporting our troops....wishing they weren't being shot at, killed and injured by the Iraqi military. Wishing they weren't holding their own people hostage, wishing they weren't using their own people as human shields.'
First about edits. Again, you are inferring that I have sneaky unscrupulous reasons to edit. I edit, like you edit when I notice a misspelled word or when I can clarify my statement. I have no sneaky goals in mind when I edit my posts and for you to infer that I do is just another dumb unfounded idea.
Can't you understand that it's difficult to deliver aid to civilians inside a war zone? Even the supply line has difficulty getting supplies to the troops.
Helen
BTW...We all care about our troops.
ubb ed. because I wanted the italics to work so that nobody would believe that the quote above was mine.
posted on March 29, 2003 09:45:14 AM new
It's not possible to debate anything when switching the blame from 'they' to 'sadam' to 'regime' and back again.
'They' are doing as 'they' are told by their 'regime'.
Just as 'our' troops are doing as 'they' are told by our 'regime'.
And 'they' and 'we' largely are lead by propaganda and fear and patriotism.
Get back to the prophecies.
How will I know the end of days.
We 'know' according to Christian bible, that the generation shall not pass, now that's about 50 years down, can we narrow it down any more, are there any other signs.
posted on March 29, 2003 10:00:42 AM new
Surely there are more signs austbounty, but I don't really think you care about any biblical prophesy, but what the heck heh?
Since the poster who started this thread, took the article off of antiwar.com site, I don't think they care about that, they care about their cause, whichever it is that day.
Well, China and Russia can come in, surely, which *could* be interpepted as Gog and Magog, the battle of.
Israel HAS to build its temple, so it has got to stay standing, well at least until that is done.
1/3 of the entire worlds population will die, either from disease, or natural and/or manmade catastrophes.
No ONE person can 'speed' up Amregeddon, as the article implies. No one. Only God, in his own time
Would you like more? I need to go get my new contacts soon, and sign more real estate papers.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on March 29, 2003 10:00:53 AM newI'm not spending the day arguing with you and your nutty ideas.
hummmmmmmm
You have edited your post many times in a way that has changed or edited what you'd previously said, to a degree. And yes, you do also edit to correct your word usage or spelling.
Can't you understand that it's difficult to deliver aid to civilians inside a war zone? Even the supply line has difficulty getting supplies to the troops.
Yes, I understand that. But the food, supplies, medical aid is being brought in by other countries. So how would you see the fact that the Iraqi military is firing on them, preventing them from delivering the supplies to their own people, as being 'helpful' to their people?
Or are you not going to argue with my "nutty ideas"? We could just take about the issues, Helen. Because we're in total disagreement with one another, doesn't mean we can't try to see how the 'other' side makes the decisions they do.
posted on March 29, 2003 11:47:48 AM new
While we're on the subject of humanitarian aid for the people of Iraq....and since a very small minority here, in the blame-America first group, believe the US is responsible for the humanitarian crisis they're facing now.....I wonder how they will be able to blame the US for what has happened today.
Today the UN voted to restart/continue the "Food for Oil" program....so the Iraqi people can get MUCH NEEDED food and medical supplies. But Saddam's right hand man [second in charge] has said NO to the UN. They are NOT going to participate in this program.
Sure looks to me like the government of Iraq is preventing the needed supplies from getting to their people. Looks to me like they're ACTIVELY working to prevent such help. But somehow, some here will most likely find a way to put the blame of a worsing crisis on our heads.
The humanitarian crisis has been caused by the United States. We have bombed their water supply, roads, communication facilities and electricity. What a disaster we have created. NOW, you want to know why we can't deliver supplies to themHelen...
posted on March 29, 2003 12:17:20 PM new
When you use my quotes, please don't take them out of context.
They are trying to survive, Linda. They know that we will not shoot their human shields. The humanitarian crisis has been caused by the United States. We have bombed their water supply, roads, communication facilities and electricity. What a disaster we have created. NOW, you want to know why we can't deliver supplies to them...like the pizza man, perhaps. Give me a break. The mines were defensive...NOT to prevent humanitarian aid.
posted on March 29, 2003 12:22:49 PM new"Oh kraft, you are not religious or anything, then why bother worrying about the 'end times' sheesh"
"Surely there are more signs austbounty, but I don't really think you care about any biblical prophesy, but what the heck heh?"
Near, why are you saying stuff like this? What does being religious have to do with asking questions about it? How do you know if austbounty cares or not? What are you thinking?
posted on March 29, 2003 12:34:41 PM new
::Under the circumstances, they are treating their people as well as they can. ::
Helen, they are shelling their own people as they attempt to get out of the way of military action. As much as I opposed this war, this ation is far and beyond the bounds of reason. What type of trining did their military recieve that taught them the theory of, "If you can't hide behind them just kill them."
They are not treating people well, they are killing those that attempt to flee and trying to cut off aid in areas they have lost. They seem to have a scorched earth policy when it comes to their own people.
I don't see how those actions could be definned as justified or defendable.
posted on March 29, 2003 01:10:44 PM new
neonmania
Not much in wartime is defensible or just on the grounds that we would normally use.
For example, I heard a retired general who suggested that we should not be so careful about civilian casualties. His attitude was, bomb them all and get out of there in a hurry. According to this guy, we are fighting with a handcuffed battle plan as if world opinion is more important than our troops. His attitude was, that can be dealt with later. He called it a PC war...(politically correct)
This kind of thinking illustrates that the decisions are not in the hands of the troops on either side. They are following orders and sometimes those orders are cruel and immoral.
Linda said, "They have little, if any, regard for their peoples lives or health."
I was trying to point out to Linda that the Iraqi guys on the battlefield do care about their lives and families just like Americans. I was not trying to justify the battle plan that they are following. I don't like her attitude toward non-Americans.
posted on March 29, 2003 01:23:38 PM new
::For example, I heard a retired general who suggested that we should not be so careful about civilian casualties. His attitude was, bomb them all and get out of there in a hurry. According to this guy, we are fighting with a handcuffed battle plan as if world opinion is more important than our troops. His attitude was, that can be dealt with later. He called it a PC war...(politically correct) ::
Yes, but I believe you are ignorig the fact that this attitude had been tken in light of Iraqi soldier disguising themselves in civilians wear and faking surrenders in order to get closer to and kill our soldiers as well as incidents such as last nights car bombing. The actions of the Iraqi military have been to deliberately put their civilians in danger.
::I was trying to point out to Linda that the Iraqi guys on the battlefield do care about their lives and families just like Americans.::
Yes, they care deeply for their family, however how much care and concern do you think they held for those that they are shooting and shelling as they flee. Serial Killers generally love their mother too, doesn't make them any less brutal.
I realize that you and Linda disagree on many subjects but I don't understand how anyone could disagree on the fact that the Iraqi military is adopting a doctrine of using their civilians as cover rather than trying to protect them is anything but wrong.
posted on March 29, 2003 02:00:15 PM new
::War is hell.::
Please tell me that that is not your justification.
I had a lot more respect for you than that.
Many countries have been invaded. Most fight the invaders in the name of protecting the innocents, they don't sacrifice the innocents in the name of protecting their own ass.
That's not war, that's genocide disguised as a military action.
[ edited by neonmania on Mar 29, 2003 02:01 PM ]
posted on March 29, 2003 02:49:56 PM new
neonmania
I had a lot more respect for you than that
I said,
Not much in wartime is defensible or just on the grounds that we would normally use.
I'll say it again.
War cannot be easily justified, in my opinion. I would be able to accept war if it was a case of self defence but we know that's not the case.
Violence and cruelty is commited on both sides of the battleground...sometimes accidental or not.
And as I pointed out before, we started this war, knowing that it would involve this type of warfare with millions of innocent victims in Baghdad. Is it fair to fault only the soldier on the field?
I have made my position clear.
Obviously, I'm not looking for or expecting any respect from you or anybody here. I could not respect myself if I believed as Linda does.
Helen
This topic is 9 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new
I have the same freedom of speech that you do. My disagreeing with almost everything the anti-war people give as their reasons for protesting this war, in NO WAY supresses your freedom to speech.
