View Single Post
Old 11-29-2006, 07:08 AM   #34
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
And before I reply, I want to thank you for finally posting a response that actually replies in a relevant manner, and directly answers questions that have been posed to you. This type of response makes the debate MUCH more civilised and logical in nature. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

This was in reply to Jae's outrage over your comments, which contradicts your comments on not being emotionally invested in debates.
There's a difference between responding with understandable outrage to a scurrilous and insulting generalisation about anti-war people, and being so emotionally invested in a debate that you throw a wobbly every time someone points out the ludicrousness of your arguments. A big difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I'll just touch on this a bit: I don't think you'd get your kicks out of watching footage of American soldiers being killed in Iraq. The sad thing is people would, moreover people would use them, and this is part of the reason over the debate, they would use the deaths of these soldiers for political gain.
First of all: Anti-war people are anti-war because they respect life and the right to live. Some pro-war Islamic fundamentalist somewhere might laugh at the deaths of US/UK soldiers... but for Jae (and you) to suggest that people who are anti-war would "get their kicks" or "yukks" out of watching the coffins come home...

Well, it's sickening, as I said before. It shows a complete lack of understanding of why people are anti-war, what anti-war people stand for... and yes, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the politics behind the war. It's also very directly insulting to the most moral, decent people in the world today... people who are anti-war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Now, yes I did watch that video, and he also made another docuementary debating Israel's existence, but that didn't stop me from watching this powerful and hard hitting drama
It's not a drama, drama's fiction. This was documentary- factual in nature.

I'm not trying to nitpick you, I know you probably didn't mean it that way. I'm just making an important distinction that people have to remember.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I have to give credit that unlike others he doesn't try to make a case for September 11 being a planned government attack
Yes, Pilger is a good journo, and a sensible man. Only conspiracy theorist nutcases believe such things as "9/11 was done by the FBI!!!11" It's important to know that anti-war people are anti-war for sound logical reasons, that are usually a matter of public record. Not because of spurious conspiracy theories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

There is one inaccuracy though, in more people dieing in Afghanistan than on September 11. That's a mistake a lot of people make, the 2996 they think is from the World Trade Centre attacks alone, with the Pentagon and Flight 93 being almost forgotten. In reality the figure is closer to 5000. I'll just go over the end here.
Actually Nancy, as far as I can tell (confiming by looking at all the news sites I can find) the 5000 figure you quote is the incorrect figure.

The generally quoted figure of 2973 (with some estimates ranging up to 3016) includes the passengers of all flights, including the pentagon, its flight and flight 93, and the emergency service workers who died on the ground.

Ref: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/
Ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/me...03/death.toll/

John Pilger doesn't get his facts wrong very often, and he was correct in this case. We have killed many many times the number of people that died on September 11th 2001. This is not to trivialise the deaths in the US, but merely to put them into context. Hell, even just the AMERICAN deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan vastly exceed the World Trade Centre/Aircraft deaths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

No, I don't think so. From day one people have protested the war, and that voice grew louder and louder until now the Democrats have been voted in. Should action have been taken sooner? I think the only reason it hasn't is because people saw Kerry as worse. No one has attempted impeechment however.
First of all, voting the Democrats in hasn't changed a great deal. Remember that Clinton signed a bill that essentially set regime change in Iraq on the agenda. This isn't just the Bush regime's war, this is a long-standing political goal. And no matter how often we change parties in office either in the US or in my home, the UK... we won't change the factors that control BOTH parties. Financial concerns, energy concerns, corporate backing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Couldn't quite make that last bit out. Direct quote to this, Britain are ****ing mad if they said this.
Oh you'd better believe it.

The British secretary of state for defence (at the time) Geoff Hoon, stated three times... once on national television in 2002 that the UK would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq with our nuclear arsenal. Horrible, horrible. Illegal. Immoral.

Ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...727982,00.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Since the dawn of time people have been using these words as excuses. Pharoh used it to justify slavery and conquest in Egypt. That doesn't make it any less right however. Afghanistan and Iraq I believe were the targets of a regime change and the leaders in those countries needed to be removed, but with Iraq especially it all turned out horribly wrong. We should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.
It has also turned out quite horribly wrong in Afghanistan.

The thing is, Nancy, that seeking regime change through military force is illegal under international law, and for a very good reason. If you want a regime to change in a foreign nation, you provide political and financial support to ordinary civilian people in that country. You don't fund violent revolutionary groups, you don't institute economic sanctions against the nation that kill more civilians than the nation's evil government officials are killing and you DON'T go into the country with an army. Period.

And the very good reason you don't do these things? Because historically without notable exception, doing ANY of these things causes more death and suffering in the targetted nation than even the most awful dictator could cause if left alone.

That's why I and many other people predicted that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq would be much worse off following US/UK invasion before the invasions. And, for that matter, that WE'D be worse off too.

It was predictable if you knew your history. Real history, not government approved history in which all US/UK wars have been "just" wars. Real history, in which oh, a grand total of... maybe one or two military interventions in our two countries' entire history that could even jokingly be described as altruistic have ever been fought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

I could say that in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, soldiers were not told something like "the target is the village of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be eliminated. They are unarmed" the way terrorists on September 11 hijacked passenger planes with 200 or 300 people on board and killed them by flying the planes into their targets with the intent of killing as many people as possible and causing as much damage as possible. I think the point however is the inevitable and tragic loss of life that occurs in any war.
Well, you know, we could sit here and debate how relevant "direct intent" is all day, Nancy. But dead civilians are dead civilians, and I don't think their grieving families will have much time for the excuse "oh, your son's/daughter's death was tragic, but an inevitable cost of war".

Because they'll ask "Then why the hell did you decide to start the war if you knew there'd be civilian casualties like this?"

And they'd be right to ask this. Especially considering the fact that the reasons for going to war had nothing to do with saving Iraqi civilians from ANYTHING.

A man that kills people while robbing a bank is just as guilty of murder as a man who kills people for the sake of killing. The parallel is pretty exact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

So make as much noise as you possibly can, not just online, in rallies and marches. Organise anti war protests, petitions, send every dollar you have to Afghanistan and Iraq and lobby others to do the same. If you feel so strongly over the issue stop whining about how unfair it all is and do something positive about it.
"whining"? Now you're getting nasty, nasty... and silly as well. Who said anything about "just online"? Do you seriously think that people who bother to debate the issue of Iraq on the internet shut their computer down of an evening and stop thinking about all the innocent children that our government has murdered in our name?

I for one am already involved in the anti-war movement... And the campaigns to repeal these ludicrous "patriot acts" and reclaim our civil liberties. And now that you've been told the truth... it's up to you to involve yourself as well. But it's up to you to avoid wasting your efforts. Voting the Democrats in doesn't change a thing. You have to do really effective things. Take some of your own advice. The next demonstration you hear about? Go and stand with them. If you don't... you'll be a hypocrite.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: