War and peaceniks

[Tony]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...s20030512.shtml ...full article


War and peaceniks
Mike S. Adams

May 12, 2003

A couple of weeks ago I walked into my office and saw that someone had placed a poster on my desk which advertised a "walk out" in protest of Bush's war on terrorism. Unlike the walkouts of the sixties which were organized by students, this event was organized by a number of UNC-Wilmington professors and staff members, some of whom are avowed socialists.

The poster reflected all of the usual tactfulness and refinement of the University Left. Beside a picture of President Bush with the word "bully" printed across his forehead, there was a picture of Lady Liberty shoving a sword up the rectum of a dove. And, of course, no anti-war poster would be complete without desecrating the American flag. This particular poster did so by portraying the stripes of Old Glory in the form of air pollution trailing a squadron of B1 bombers.

When these posters were placed all over campus, a number of students were predictably offended. In fact, many had family members fighting in the conflict. I was shocked to find that the posters had been run off at taxpayer expense by a professor who had cancelled her classes for a week just to organize the protest. Instead of attending the classes they paid for, students were given "extra-credit" for listening to their professors denigrate their president and their country.

I was pleased when some of the students who were offended took action by making hundreds of pro war flyers which they posted all over campus. Unfortunately, university employees removed scores of them from the student union under the pretense that they were "offensive." Nonetheless, the same employees were not offended by dozens of magazines which were previously left in the same area by gay activists. Their literature was allowed to remain despite the fact that it contained a photograph of two gay men engaged in anal sex. Nor was there any effort to remove a large sign left by the Women's Resource Center earlier in the semester which called for all "P**sies" to unite and attend a feminist play called the Vagina Monologues.

Eventually, the promotion phase ended and the big day of the "walk out" finally came around. The main event, which was a panel of several faculty members discussing their opposition to the war, was attended by only a handful of peace activists. Most students who had their classes cancelled were probably taking in the sun at nearby Wrightsville Beach.

One conservative graduate student as well as a conservative faculty member (whose identity you will have to guess) decided to display mocking posters outside of the building where the faculty "discussion" panel was being held. One poster simply had pictures of women and children who had been murdered in chemical weapons attacks launched during Saddam's reign of terror. Another said "Please go home American soldiers...Iraqis enjoy being raped, tortured, and gassed by Saddam."

[Genghis Pwn]

What a disgrace. I have noticed that most "war protesters" are women, gays, and assorted lost souls.

Women and gays aren´t really into confronting evil and dangerous men like Saddam. It´s not their thing. That has always been the job of "good men." Something like 95% of US Republican males favored the war in Iraq, and perhaps 85% or more of Democrat males. Only 50% of women favored it, though, and gays.... well... gays don´t like war.

This is not a dispersion on women and gays, it´s just a a fact and observation, so don´t flame me, dammit!

[max]

Tony
I didn't go into the link because this PC is so slow and old that sometimes I wait up to ten mins to get in a link suggested on here. Did it say what nationality the professor who instigated the whole thing was? Why do you suppose anyone would be so stupid/backward to take the side of terrorists? The mind boggles

[Frostbite]

Everything is not black or white; just because they're against war doesn't mean they're in favor of terrorists. :rolleyes:

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
This is not a dispersion on women and gays, it´s just a a fact and observation, so don´t flame me, dammit!

Is it? On what observations do you base this "fact"? Sources for your claims?

[Lazarus]

(Tony, I'm afraid that your link is dead)

Lessons in rational thought?

Posted by Tony from an article on the net
this event was organized by a number of UNC-Wilmington professors and staff members, some of whom are avowed socialists. Are UNC-Wilmington faculty and staff contractually prohibited from displays of political dissent on campus? Did they break any laws? If not, where is the problem? Plus, other than an inflamatory one, what purpose does the association of socialism to the protesters serve? What is the relevance?

I was shocked to find that the posters had been run off at taxpayer expense by a professor who had cancelled her classes for a week just to organize the protest. Instead of attending the classes they paid for, students were given "extra-credit" for listening to their professors denigrate their president and their country. In the original story, are these accusations confirmed? If so, the university may consider disciplinary action. If not, it is nothing more than inflamatory rhetoric. Furthermore, as far as I know, we have no laws prohibiting criticism of gov't. Many previous presidents fared quite well through harsh criticism. Is our present administration less secure in this respect?

The poster reflected all of the usual tactfulness and refinement of the University Left. I find little difference in degree of 'tactfulness' recorded in this paragraph than that recoorded in the final paragraph of this original post. Is one side somehow more credible than the other, even though each may act similarly?

This article seems to poorly reflect the ideals and the intent of this website. I find little critical thought, and lots of unsupported opinion.

Posted by Genghis Pwn
I have noticed that most "war protesters" are women, gays, and assorted lost souls Mr. Pwn, would you care to enlighten us on how you came about this powerful observation? Is this a world wide phenomena? A national one? Or, just local?

Women and gays aren´t really into confronting evil and dangerous men like Saddam. It´s not their thing. That has always been the job of "good men." Something like 95% of US Republican males favored the war in Iraq, and perhaps 85% or more of Democrat males. Only 50% of women favored it Here are several very authoritative claims, it seems. Would you, please, direct us to your sources, or did you perform the various studies on your own dime?

and gays.... well... gays don´t like war Hmmh...Aren't gay men considered to be males? Wouldn't they fall into the two groups of males listed above, or do we count them twice in your study? Honestly, I fail to see any rational reason for the need to specifically include homosexual men in your previous observations. However, I would be interested to know why someone would feel the need to single out only one of many social groups in such a discussion.

[Dancing David]

Ghengis: what about the brave soldiers who are gays and women and lost souls. Wink.

Yeah, I have to admit that this peacenik is offensive, when I protested the war I did it by holding a candle. I have never supported the denegration of the US flag, and I would never call a vet a baby killer.

I have yet to see a cogent argument for why we cozy up with all the other tin-pot dictators and go afetr this one. Geesh , go check out Amnesty on Pakistan, shoot I bet a significant number of terrorists were trained there, but hey thats okat, they are our buds now.

Those who don't remember Pinochet are doomed to replace him.

Peace

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
What a disgrace. I have noticed that most "war protesters" are women, gays, and assorted lost souls.

Women and gays aren´t really into confronting evil and dangerous men like Saddam. It´s not their thing. That has always been the job of "good men." Something like 95% of US Republican males favored the war in Iraq, and perhaps 85% or more of Democrat males. Only 50% of women favored it, though, and gays.... well... gays don´t like war.

This is not a dispersion on women and gays, it´s just a a fact and observation, so don´t flame me, dammit!

Not an intellectually well thought out comment, IMHO. You are making what is known as an "ad hominem" attack (reference) (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm).

Attack the position, not the person holding the position. Why is it wrong to protest the war? Or maybe it is only wrong to protest the war if - as Tony alludes - one side is given preferential treatment by persons of authority?

[voidx]

Aside from the fact that protesters in general usually don't have any real firm grasp of what it is their protesting, there's nothing preventing them from doing so, for either side. Do I think some student running around with a "No blood for oil" poster is probably extremely ignorant? Yes. Is it his right to be ignorant and display it thusly? Yes :D.

The only thing I'd have a problem with was if indeed it can be shown that university resources were used to fund this. If the university wanted to finance an open end debate/discussion, on whether the war in Iraq makes sense, that would be ok. But to take a particular side and then use tax payers money to finance it, seems a tad unethical to me.

As far as Genghis *COUGH* Jedi Knight *COUGH* Pwn is concerned, just realize that someone with such a ridiculously ignorant viewpoint will never be convinced otherwise. That's even if he believes it. I often wonder whether he does it just to prompt outcries and discussion.

[DialecticMaterialist]

If that's true, that's ridiculous. (Note: I am not supporting the comment made concerning gays or women just commenting on the article.)

I mean if one groups gets to put up posters, another does. And cancelling class to protest a war is a ridiculous waste of tax payers money.

I guess some groups of people like freedom of speech so much they wish to keep it all for themselves. ;)

[Lyle Beaudoin]

I feel my reasons for opposing this war are clear cut and quite simple:

America didn't make its case. It went to war on false pretenses.

I didn't know what those pretenses were. Could've been oil, could've been personal, could've been religious, could've been to distract the voting populace from the trainwreck that is Bush's domestic policies. I didn't know. But I saw no proof of America's claims regarding Iraq's arsenal, and America's claims were pretty specific at times.

I'm amazed that so many people will put great thought into how to properly test whether or not someone can bend a spoon with their mind, but just roll over in the face of something important like this. If Iraq is blatantly disregarding the U.N., prove it. If the U.S. had provided proof in the first place, this would probably have ended up being a U.N. action. Whether folks like that idea or not, it would've been better for international relations all around, don't you think?

That it turned out the U.S.'s top priorities were to secure Iraq's oilfields and administration facilities seems to validate the War For Oil argument. But I never made that argument. America didn't make it's case for war; everything that's happened since has just been icing on Bush's cake.

Or if the world is lucky, nails in his political coffin.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Not an intellectually well thought out comment, IMHO. You are making what is known as an "ad hominem" attack (reference) (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm).

Attack the position, not the person holding the position. Why is it wrong to protest the war? Or maybe it is only wrong to protest the war if - as Tony alludes - one side is given preferential treatment by persons of authority?

Wait a minute, I didn´t attack anyone, other than saying that some "peace movement" people are "lost souls." Is that really a stretch? Have you seen these people?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
America didn't make its case. It went to war on false pretenses. This has been done to death and I don't think it is the subject of the thread but I have to say I disagree.

Saddam failed to comply with his agreements. After 12 years and much effort on our part he was still not complying. We were upfront with him and he knew the consequences of his actions. Anyone that thought we were kidding and it was all an exercise to see how long the charade would be played out was only fooling themselves.

I'm amazed that so many people will put great thought into how to properly test whether or not someone can bend a spoon with their mind, but just roll over in the face of something important like this. Just because people take a different point of view than you does not mean that they have rolled over.

If Iraq is blatantly disregarding the U.N., prove it. There is nothing to prove. After 12 years and having been caught time and time again lying and obfuscating we did what we warned Saddam we would do. He didn't take us seriously. He made a mistake.

If the U.S. had provided proof in the first place, this would probably have ended up being a U.N. action. France said they would not act regardless of any evidence so it is demonstrable that there would have been NO action.

Whether folks like that idea or not, it would've been better for international relations all around, don't you think? No, not at all. I think international relations will be much better. We now know who our true allies are and there is one less murdering thug in the world.

Job well done.

[Lazarus]

Randfan, you are mostly correct. However, you seem to infer that violation of UN sanctions is is indeed cause for unilateral invasion of another nation. If this is your intent, how shall we enforce this new policy throughout the world? And, if we choose to enforce it arbitrarily, who should be the arbiter? What should be the checks on the arbiter concerning balance of power?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Lazarus
Randfan, you are mostly correct. However, you seem to infer that violation of UN sanctions is is indeed cause for unilateral invasion of another nation. If this is your intent, how shall we enforce this new policy throughout the world? And, if we choose to enforce it arbitrarily, who should be the arbiter? What should be the checks on the arbiter concerning balance of power? Lazarus,

It's a valid question. I have duked it out with Wayne Grabert and a number of others over this issue and I'm not certain that I have always carried the day as to this argument.

We can quible over uniltateral, we did have England and other countries however we didn't have France, Germany and Russia which is significant. I can't minimize the failure to get them onboard.

In the end we had to make a decision. A decision that will have wide ranging ramifications that we can't truly know of for sometime. I believe that the decision was the correct one but I acknowledge that there are legal questions and pragmatic consequences that we will have to deal with.

Thanks.

RandFan

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by RandFan
This has been done to death and I don't think it is the subject of the thread but I have to say I disagree.

Saddam failed to comply with his agreements. After 12 years and much effort on our part he was still not complying. We were upfront with him and he knew the consequences of his actions. Anyone that thought we were kidding and it was all an exercise to see how long the charade would be played out was only fooling themselves.

Just because people take a different point of view than you does not mean that they have rolled over.

There is nothing to prove. After 12 years and having been caught time and time again lying and obfuscating we did what we warned Saddam we would do. He didn't take us seriously. He made a mistake.

France said they would not act regardless of any evidence so it is demonstrable that there would have been NO action.

No, not at all. I think international relations will be much better. We now know who our true allies are and there is one less murdering thug in the world.

Job well done.

In order:

Not your call. Action to be taken in light of violation of U.N. Resolutions is up to the U.N. Action to remove a clear and present threat to your nation's security is another thing, but the idea that Iraq presented such a threat is laughable. I, for one, never thought Bush was kidding, just lying. As for 12 years...what's the rush? I've never seen Iraq as a threat. Saddam Hussein is a rotten human being, sure, but Iraq is not a threat. If you feel differently, fine. But I think the U.S. was obliged to show this if it's so, and they didn't.

No, JUST because their views oppose mine doesn't mean they've rolled over. Those that parrot Fox News' propaganda is to whom I refer. Others don't play this game, but still support this war for other reasons. Good for them for staying focused. I still disagree. Good for them for not being all uber-patriotic and jingoistic about their political opinions. I still disagree.

If you're referring to France promising to veto 'regardless of circumstances', that phrase was in regards to circumstances on the UN floor, not circumstances in Iraq regarding the presence or absence of weapons. To put it conversationally, I took the comment, when read in context, to mean "since the U.S. has told us they're going to attack and this session is just a formality, we might as well veto. Regardless of circumstances." France also said that should these weapons be found or used during the course of the war, they'd be fighting the Iraqis by your side. I'm not an international diplomat, but that's how I interpreted France's statement.

You think relations with the rest of the world will be better? You had the world's support and sympathy after the World Trade Center was attacked. Now you don't. I'd say Bush has not played his cards right in any way, shape or form.

Yes, Saddam Hussein is a murdering thug. Like, totally. This is not just cause for war. It's cause for everything but war, but I don't believe in burning the village to save it.

Feel free to disagree with all of this if you see fit. I'm only bringing it up to refute the idea that people who protest don't know what it is they're protesting. Millions of people marched in protest, across the world. How many soundbites? 100? 200? Is that enough to allow anyone to say anything in general about protestors other than they are protesting?

I felt it necessary to explain why I think what I think. To just say "generalizing is bad" wouldn't cut it. And this is a thread about war and peaceniks, after all. Well, I guess I'm what passes for a peacenik in these parts.

[schplurg]

Back on topic, if I may be so bold:

I don't feel that teachers should be indoctrinating students with their political ideals on school grounds in any way. Stating an opinion in class is fine, to an extent, especially if you are a poly/sci professor, but organizing a protest, cancelling classes, and staging a walkout is going too far.

This is not only happening in colleges (at least most college students are adults). At the beginning of the Iraq conflict, two elementary teachers at a local school took their students on a field trip. This "field trip" ended up being an anti-war rally in San Francisco. I don't have any links, as this is an old story (one of many). I heard teachers on one of the local radio newstalk stations (KGO) trying to defend their actions. Parents also called in complaining that they weren't asked to sign a permission slip before this event so that their children (minors) could attend. In another case, a permission slip was sent out, however it did not indicate that the destination of the field trip would be a political rally. There were some extremely pissed off parents, and I don't blame them.

There was also a class of fourth graders who had a project to send letters to the president asking him to stop the war. These are what, 9 year old kids who have no concept of politics? That is sick.

If a teacher wants to protest, or organize a protest, then that teacher, in my opinion, should not be allowed to print or post signs, recruit members, or spout their views on school property, and they should not be able to use any materials supplied from the school. Not to mention that public school teachers who cancel classes or take time during class for these purposes are doing so with taxpayer money. Private schools are a different matter I suppose, so I'm not going to touch that.

I've been trying to dig up some links from my local papers but it seems I have to PAY the San Jose Mercury News $2.95 per article to view their archives online!!! Screw that! I'll keep digging....for now I guess you'll just have to believe it or not.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
Not your call. Action to be taken in light of violation of U.N. Resolutions is up to the U.N. Action to remove a clear and present threat to your nation's security is another thing, but the idea that Iraq presented such a threat is laughable. It absolutely was our call. Of what value is the UN if it refuses to back up its resolutions? By all means disagree but we did what was right. And I'm damn glad we did. I felt it was wrong not to get Saddam in the first place and I believe he was a serious problem. Your laughter does little to change that fact. But go ahead and laugh.

[qiuote] I, for one, never thought Bush was kidding, just lying.[/quote] You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

As for 12 years...what's the rush? Sure, right, what is the rush? It should have happened 6 years ago. The real question is what the hell took so long. Of what value is the UN if it can't affect something so simple?

I've never seen Iraq as a threat. So?

Saddam Hussein is a rotten human being, sure, but Iraq is not a threat. If you feel differently, fine. But I think the U.S. was obliged to show this if it's so, and they didn't. Gassing his people, invading a neighbor, launching scuds against Israel, lying about biological weapons. He was a threat but that is not the point. He was ordered to comply and he didn't if you don't care that is fine. The president did care and I for one am glad that he did.

I still disagree. Good for them for not being all uber-patriotic and jingoistic about their political opinions. I still disagree. I respect that.

If you're referring to France promising to veto 'regardless of circumstances', that phrase was in regards to circumstances on the UN floor, not circumstances in Iraq regarding the presence or absence of weapons. To put it conversationally, I took the comment, when read in context, to mean "since the U.S. has told us they're going to attack and this session is just a formality, we might as well veto. Regardless of circumstances." France also said that should these weapons be found or used during the course of the war, they'd be fighting the Iraqis by your side. I'm not an international diplomat, but that's how I interpreted France's statement. No, France said it would oppose "any" action.

You think relations with the rest of the world will be better? You had the world's support and sympathy after the World Trade Center was attacked. Of what possible value is token support? We still have the support of many nations. Now we know who held the dagers as the patted our backs with offers of condolence. Yes! I absolutely think things are better.

Yes, Saddam Hussein is a murdering thug. Like, totally. This is not just cause for war. It's cause for everything but war, but I don't believe in burning the village to save it. People are free, ask them how many feel that your statement is correct that we burned the village to save it? How many would like to go back to Saddam treachery to undue the damage to their village?

A better case could be made that we burned Berlin to save the Germans.

Feel free to disagree with all of this if you see fit. I'm only bringing it up to refute the idea that people who protest don't know what it is they're protesting. Millions of people marched in protest, across the world. How many soundbites? 100? 200? Is that enough to allow anyone to say anything in general about protestors other than they are protesting? I respect those who protest. I responded to refute the idea that those in favor of the war had "rolled over".

I felt it necessary to explain why I think what I think. To just say "generalizing is bad" wouldn't cut it. And this is a thread about war and peaceniks, after all. Well, I guess I'm what passes for a peacenik in these parts. And I felt it necassary to explain why I think what I think.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Sure, right, what is the rush? It should have happened 6 years ago. The real question is what the hell took so long. Of what value is the UN if it can't affect something so simple?

As far as I can tell, it was being effective. Troops weren't pouring out of Iraq. American cities weren't under clouds of nerve gas, and no one anywhere has seen the means for Iraq to put any cities there, or unveiled any plans for it to do so. The threat didn't seem all that imminent.

If I'm wrong, if it was a threat, then it shouldn't have been so tough to prove. After all, everyone knows it.

You invaded Iraq, these chemical/biological attacks didn't take place (although nothing guarantees Hussein would attack in these circumstances, enemy troops arriving on the edge of your capital city is as good a time as any). Your military has as much as given up looking for these weapons and re-allocated its resources, so finding stashes of weapons is apparently not as important as we were all told. Certainly Iraq's convential forces posed no threat. In fact, the threat seems not to have existed at all.

So why go to war? Saddam Hussein may hate America with a passion, but he was apparently powerless to do much about it. If that's what passes for peace these days, then I'll take that over supporting pre-emptive strikes.

If you take offense at my using the term "rolling over", then I apologize. But there's a fast-moving propaganda machine, and if you aren't swept up in it, aren't you curious as to why there is one? You don't find it the least bit fishy?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
As far as I can tell, it was being effective. Troops weren't pouring out of Iraq. American cities weren't under clouds of nerve gas, and no one anywhere has seen the means for Iraq to put any cities there, or unveiled any plans for it to do so. The threat didn't seem all that imminent. As far as you can tell? I respect your opinion but it wasn't because of an imminent threat and none was needed. And as "far as it was effective" Saddam had been caught lying about biological agents (anthrax) and a host of other things. There can only be one of two things cooperation or non cooperation. Anything else was a game being played by Saddam.

If I'm wrong, if it was a threat, then it shouldn't have been so tough to prove. After all, everyone knows it. I can't make you see what you won't look at. I have enumerated Saddam's actions and his lies and his obfuscation. The action was appropriate.

So why go to war? Saddam Hussein may hate America with a passion, but he was apparently powerless to do much about it. If that's what passes for peace these days, then I'll take that over supporting pre-emptive strikes. Oh yes, the peace loving Saddam, the innocent powerless Saddam. Sorry if I don't share your vision of him. You can say he was powerless if that will justify your opposition to the war but history does not support your contention.

If you take offense at my using the term "rolling over", then I apologize. But there's a fast-moving propaganda machine, and if you aren't swept up in it, aren't you curious as to why there is one? I'll give you some advice Lyle, when ever you see one side of the aisle dishing out propaganda, ask your self what propaganda is MY side dishing out.

There is always propaganda and there will always be propaganda. The Republicans want to take away everyone's health care starve children and burn babies. The war was only for oil. The Jews are behind a grand conspiracy to take over the world.

There are lies and truth all around. If you think the activists and leaders of those that tell you the things that you like to hear only speak the truth and have no ulterior motives then I would say that you are very naive.

You don't find it the least bit fishy? I find it ALL fishy. The Unions, the presidency, the Democrats, the Republicans, the special interests, Green Peace, the NRA (I'm a member), PETA, Young Republicans, Ralph Nader, the PTA, etc., etc.

What I find the most fishy are those that buy into the lie that only the other side lies? Do you buy into that lie?

That is called being a skeptic. None of that however changes the fact that thousands were disappearing into the night in Iraq. That people were getting their ears cut off and this bastard was taking the oil for food money and building palaces and thumbing his nose at the international community. He's gone now and people are free. Saddam cannot hurt anymore of his neighbors or countrymen.

I'm quite happy.

[DialecticMaterialist]

None of that however changes the fact that thousands were disappearing into the night in Iraq. That people were getting their ears cut off and this bastard was taking the oil for food money and building palaces and thumbing his nose at the international community. He's gone now and people are free. Saddam cannot hurt anymore of his neighbors or countrymen.

I'm quite happy.


Couldn't have said it better myself. :)

[Lyle Beaudoin]

I find it ALL fishy. The Unions, the presidency, the Democrats, the Republicans, the special interests, Green Peace, the NRA (I'm a member), PETA, Young Republicans, Ralph Nader, the PTA, etc., etc.

What I find the most fishy are those that buy into the lie that only the other side lies? Do you buy into that lie?

Sure. Especially PETA and Greenpeace.

But none of these groups are dropping bombs, and their opinions don't influence mine anyway. The BBC, the CBC, CNN, and from time to time the White House's own archives are generally where I go for news.

War is a big deal, and I don't think ironclad proof is all that much to ask for. If it's the principle of the thing, if Iraq giving the UN any kind of runaround at all is grounds for military action, then it's the problem of the UN.

The lies and the obfuscation and the games are why the UN was crawling all over the country in the first place, no? They aren't cause for war, in my opinion. I don't deny them, I just don't consider them just cause.

I'm dubious as to the long term benefit to the Iraqi people, to be honest. All sorts of tribes, cabals, powerful families, religious tensions...yikes. What a mess. If a regional government manages to build a utopia, great! But I have my doubts.

I'll happily and cordially leave it at that, and we can go back to laughing at the people waiting for Planet X to show up.

Oh, the topic. I'd be plenty cheesed if my classes were cancelled so my profs could organize a protest. Kind of a no-brainer, really.

Elementary-level students don't belong at a protest! Cops throw tear gas at those things now and again! And they can get loud! Foolishness.

schplurg says "If a teacher wants to protest, or organize a protest, then that teacher, in my opinion, should not be allowed to print or post signs, recruit members, or spout their views on school property, and they should not be able to use any materials supplied from the school."

Yeah! Teachers making weekend plans in the lunchrooms is going too far! As for the supplies, sure. Assuming the teacher didn't pay for them out of his own pocket in the first place. But if every piece of construction paper is of concern, I have to wonder if motion sensors on the stationery cupboard door is sufficient, or would you prefer to just have a camera feed piped directly into your home? Teachers shouldn't be allowed to go too far, but "too far" ought to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Saying "thou shalt not" is getting into zero-tolerance territory. Yes, carting kids to a protest is going way, way too far.

No, teachers in the younger grades especially shouldn't proselytize. But current events were part of my elementary education, and if a teacher discusses both sides of an issue, then is that spouting of views? What is, exactly?

If teachers aren't allowed to influence how students think, who is? And how much?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
But none of these groups are dropping bombs,... My point had nothing to do with dropping bombs and is irrelevant as to whether or not their is a "fast moving propoganda machine".

...and their opinions don't influence mine anyway. The BBC, the CBC, CNN, and from time to time the White House's own archives are generally where I go for news. More leftest propoganda. Sorry couldn't resist.

War is a big deal, and I don't think ironclad proof is all that much to ask for. You are entitled to your opinion. There was absolute ironclad proof that Saddam was not complying but rather playing his usual game to see how long he could drag the whole affair out. Hey, he had made it for 12 years. Why shouldn't he think that he could last another 12?

If it's the principle of the thing, if Iraq giving the UN any kind of runaround at all is grounds for military action, then it's the problem of the UN. The problem which has been stated before is that the UN has shown that it was unwilling to force Saddam to comply. Shoving the whole thing into their hands is simply irresponsible.

The lies and the obfuscation and the games are why the UN was crawling all over the country in the first place, no? NO! They were there to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction. They were crawling all over the country for TWELVE years because of his lies and obfuscation.

They aren't cause for war, in my opinion. I don't deny them, I just don't consider them just cause. That is fine. As I have said before I respect your opinion. I strongly disagree.

I'm dubious as to the long term benefit to the Iraqi people, to be honest. Oh, so doubt as to the long term interest is a reason to not act.

Hey, people aren't being murdered today. 3 weeks ago loved ones were disapearing. People are so frantic to find their missing sons and fathers that they are searching for hidden prisons in sewers.

At least there is hope where there was none before.

I'll happily and cordially leave it at that, and we can go back to laughing at the people waiting for Planet X to show up. Ok, that is fine.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by voidx

As far as Genghis *COUGH* Jedi Knight *COUGH* Pwn is concerned, just realize that someone with such a ridiculously ignorant viewpoint will never be convinced otherwise. That's even if he believes it. I often wonder whether he does it just to prompt outcries and discussion.

What gives you the right to attack me and call me names? Why are you claiming I am somone that I am not? What a cheap attack. I am not Jedi Knight. Would you like to place a wager on that? You name the amount.

Here are 2 charts for you, from the Pew research center from this April.

http://people-press.org/reports/images/179-6.gif

http://people-press.org/reports/images/177-4.gif

Like I said, most anti-war people are women. If you break this down further by party politics, more than 95% of Republican males favored and supported the war.


As for gays...

Rochester, NY—March 14, 2003—When asked in a recent survey how much confidence they have in President Bush and his administration to ‘make the right decisions’ regarding the use or non-use of the U.S. military to attack Iraq, six out of ten (60%) of heterosexual adults nationwide stated they are somewhat or very confident. In sharp contrast only 31% of self-identified gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) adults said they felt the same.

Here is the link to the poll results: Gays and Lesbians Far More Skeptical of U.S. Policies, Possible War Against Iraq (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=594)

I can find you ten more if these don´t suit your requirements.

As for "lost souls"... that´s more of an opinion. I can´t find any documentation to back it :D

voidx, now that I have proven most of my statement to be correct, please apologize to me for calling it "ridiculously ignorant."