Anti War Protests in Taiwan?

[slim9]

I don’t get this reference to Birkenstocks … I hate them myself but why do people associate them with I guess the hippy trail ???

[TainanCowboy]

[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]OK, TC, if it’s posters you want, it’s posters you’ll get…
[/quote]
D.B. -
I like that…good one! :bravo:

[slim9]

@Tetsuo

[quote=“slim9”]Does anyone know of any anti-War protests coming up this month to mark the second anniversary of the US’s illegal invasion of Iraq … in Taiwan?

Um, isn’t it a bit after the horse has bolted to hold an anti-war protest opposing a war that’s pretty much been and gone?[/quote]

Been and gone? Do you not read the newspapers? Or do you think it is all peace and flowers now? The American death tally is at 1500… lord knows what the Iraqi one is “coz this time we ain’t counting”. The vast majority of these deaths have occurred subsequent to the American adminstration declaring that major operations are over.

[Hobbes]

@slim9

I did also recently come across a document that was written by the Bush administration detailing their plans to invade Iraq regardless of whether Saddam was in power. The most amazing thing about this document was that it was written before he came to power. I would be happy to post the link if anyone is interested.

I’m interested.

[TainanCowboy]

[quote=“sandman”]There’s a big protest on Sunday to protest China’s anti-secession law, which lays the legal groundwork for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan should Taiwan declare independence.
You could always wear your Birkenstocks to that, Slim.
Oh, wait, that’s no good to you, is it? Being as it would be a “legal” invasion and being as how the commies are the “good guys,” right?[/quote]
Good one…

[slim9]

newamericancentury.org/publi … eports.htm

The link leads to the official PNAC (the Bush thinktank). The last one on the page is called

Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century

It is a 90 page document PDF format. If you search for “saddam” you can get a couple of references to my previous comments.

[sandman]

Well, you’d better get your spleen vented fast Slim, because as soon as Rascal sees this it’ll be floundered, split or moved. There are hundreds of PAGES of posts on this subject already. Check the rules before you post, specifically the rules pertaining to starting new threads on topics that already exist.
And watch out for Fred and his buddies. From the looks of things, you just 'aint got enough.

[slim9]

You are right … I do apologise but my initial question did refer to an aspect that I hadn’t seen covered. But I think I have my answer now.

[Tigerman]

@slim9

There is a standard international law laid out by that oh-so-troublesome world body the UN that stipulates that you can only “legally” attack another country if you are under direct attack from them (i.e. in self-defense) or if the UN security council agrees that action should be taken.

Actually, this issue is not nearly as clear-cut as you suggest.

[Tetsuo]

@slim9

Been and gone? Do you not read the newspapers? Or do you think it is all peace and flowers now? The American death tally is at 1500… lord knows what the Iraqi one is “coz this time we ain’t counting”. The vast majority of these deaths have occurred subsequent to the American adminstration declaring that major operations are over.

Goddamned idiot hippies. Almost enough to make me start rooting for the Right.

@Mirriam-Webster

1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict

Care to tell me which to states or nations are involved in this open hostile conflict? 'cause it sure as shit ain’t Iraq vs the Coalition of Bush’s Mates. You may’ve noticed they’re not fighting IRAQ anymore, but retarded dickheads who think that killing their fellow Iraqis and beheading aid workers is La Resistance.

Don’t get me wrong mate, I was all against the invasion and war, but I think that ship has sailed. Put down the hookah and get with the program.

[jdsmith]

@Tetsuo

[quote=“slim9”]Been and gone? Do you not read the newspapers? Or do you think it is all peace and flowers now? The American death tally is at 1500… lord knows what the Iraqi one is “coz this time we ain’t counting”. The vast majority of these deaths have occurred subsequent to the American adminstration declaring that major operations are over.

Goddamned idiot hippies. Almost enough to make me start rooting for the Right.

@Mirriam-Webster

1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict

Care to tell me which to states or nations are involved in this open hostile conflict? 'cause it sure as shit ain’t Iraq vs the Coalition of Bush’s Mates. You may’ve noticed they’re not fighting Iraq anymore, but retarded dickheads who think that killing their fellow Iraqis and beheading aid workers is La Resistance.

Don’t get me wrong mate, I was all against the invasion and war, but I think that ship has sailed. Put down the hookah and get with the program.[/quote]

Tetsuo…coooome cloooser…come cloooser to the riiight.

we have beer here tooooo.

coooooome

[Bassman]

Sorry, but he’s a Kiwi and we are left of center (centre).

Try a New Zealand beer

[jdsmith]

[quote=“Bassman”]Sorry, but he’s a Kiwi and we are left of center (centre).

Try a New Zealand beer [/quote]

cooooold beeeer

gooooood:)

[slim9]

@Tigerman

[quote=“slim9”]There is a standard international law laid out by that oh-so-troublesome world body the UN that stipulates that you can only “legally” attack another country if you are under direct attack from them (i.e. in self-defense) or if the UN security council agrees that action should be taken.

Actually, this issue is not nearly as clear-cut as you suggest.[/quote]

I don’t think that article did much to change anything. It word-played its way through continually drawing reference to anticipatory self-defense. The Bush/Blair adminstration knew and publicly stated that Iraq posed no threat so just where was this anticipated attack supposed to come from?

[Tigerman]

@slim9

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“slim9”]There is a standard international law laid out by that oh-so-troublesome world body the UN that stipulates that you can only “legally” attack another country if you are under direct attack from them (i.e. in self-defense) or if the UN security council agrees that action should be taken.

Actually, this issue is not nearly as clear-cut as you suggest.[/quote]

I don’t think that article did much to change anything. It word-played its way through continually drawing reference to anticipatory self-defense. The Bush/Blair adminstration knew and publicly stated that Iraq posed no threat so just where was this anticipated attack supposed to come from?[/quote]

Its the new age. The new nuclear age.

In this new nuclear age, where bad guys actively seek possession of a nuke and intend to use it when they get it… the old notion of pre-emptive right has necessarily changed. In the old nuke age, assured mutual destruction held hostiles at bay. There is nothing to hold the new bad guys at bay. Thus, pre-emptive measures, including war, are necessary.

It would be idiotic to wait to be attacked with a nuke. We’re not talking about a foreign army amassing at our border… we’re talking about some guy with a briefcase hiding a nuke.

[Tetsuo]

@Bassman

Sorry, but he’s a Kiwi and we are left of center (centre).

Damn dude, we’re so far left of centre even our centre is left-wing

[slim9]

[quote=“Tigerman”]
Its the new age. The new nuclear age.

In this new nuclear age, where bad guys actively seek possession of a nuke and intend to use it when they get it… the old notion of pre-emptive right has necessarily changed. In the old nuke age, assured mutual destruction held hostiles at bay. There is nothing to hold the new bad guys at bay. Thus, pre-emptive measures, including war, are necessary.

It would be idiotic to wait to be attacked with a nuke. We’re not talking about a foreign army amassing at our border… we’re talking about some guy with a briefcase hiding a nuke.[/quote]

I understand your premise but with that said, you are basically saying that the USA (or indeed any country) has the right to attack any country that has nuclear weapons and which they deem be a threat. In which case can we all attack America? :loco:

But ok then, I’ll state my question again, what nuclear threat did Iraq pose to the USA?

[s.b]

@slim9

Does anyone know of any anti-War protests coming up this month to mark the second anniversary of the US’s illegal invasion of Iraq … in Taiwan?

there are some activities coming up in the region that you may be interested in…

War Resisters’ International, the international network of pacifist organisations with 80 affiliates in 40 countries, founded in 1921, is cooperating with South Korean partner organisations for an international seminar on Peace in North-East Asia, to be held in South Korea in June 2005. The seminar will bring together about 100 peace activists and peace researchers from North-East Asia and all over the world, to discuss the present threats to peace in North-East Asia, and possible peace movement responses, based on War Resisters’ International’s more than 80 years of experience with nonviolence.

or if marches and protest actions are more up your alley, the WTO will meet in Hong Kong this December. You know how it works, if you want peace, fight for justice.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20050221082653216

best of luck…

[ididn_tdoit]

@fred smith

What would the purpose of such a protest be?

As somewhat of a lefty peace activist sort (a thinking one though), I have to say it is amazing how often I agree with Fred Smith.

What would the purpose be?
To say that America should leave iraq immediately?
To say that America shouldn’t have invaded two years ago?
To tell the world that we think America sucks but we do not have
any ideas about what we can do about it?

Come on people

The marches and protests of two years ago served a purpose, they may have been ignored by the powers that be, but they brought people together to think of more creative ways to promote peace.

A pointless march and aimless protest would indeed make the pro-peace crowd look pretty foolish

[Tetsuo]

[quote=“ididn’tdoit”]What would the purpose be?
To say that America should leave Iraq immediately?
To say that America shouldn’t have invaded two years ago?
To tell the world that we think America sucks but we do not have
any ideas about what we can do about it?

Come on people [/quote]
Yes yes yes yes YES! Nail on the head! That’s kind of what I was getting at before - what exactly do you hope to achieve by protesting against an invasion that happened two years ago? What, are you going to demand the US put to use that secret time-travel project they’ve been working on, send Bush back in time, and make him tell his past self not to authorize the invasion?