I disagree. I don’t know what’s so anonymous about a report by UNICEF official Anupama Rao Singh to a March 20, 2000, Security Council 661 Committee meeting; a statement by US representative Eugene Young; an April 2000 US report to the 661 Committee; or a June 23, 1991 Washington Post article. But the article will come out shortly in a book to be published by the Harvard University Press, so we can judge it further then.[/quote]
Sorry, MT - you’re right - the sources you list are mentioned - briefly - in the article. I was wary because of this statement:
And taking a stand against something is fine and dandy, but please suggest an alternative. War is never nice. It’s horrible. But sometimes it is the only option. I’m not saying that the only way to get Iraq to comply with UN resolutions is through force. Maybe there are other ways. But what are they? If one doesn’t want to be part of the solution, then isn’t one part of the problem?:?
Come on Maoman, that’s just silly. If I had nothing better to do, I could take every line of that ‘speech’ and explain how they are just not factually correct. Taking such liberties with the truth, is just plain un-American.
I agree. Its discouraging to hear remarks from people opposed to war that suggest that those who are willing to go to war for a cause “like” or “want” war. And I’m not implying that MT has made such suggestions, but I’ve heard and seen them in plenty of other places. I don’t like to refer to those opposed to the threatened Iraq war as “peaceniks”, because that implies that they are for peace and that those willing to go to war oppose peace. That, of course, is a ludicrous notion.
Those who oppose war to oust Saddam are frequently the same people who also oppose(d) sanctions imposed on Iraq by the UN (not the US).
But there were reasons that those sanctions were imposed in the first place… and there are also reasons that war is now threatened.
If the matter is settled peacefully (and I doubt it will be), it will be because the US and its allies are willing to go to war, and not because some people marched in peace demonstrations (the only reason Saddam agreed to the most recent UN inspections is that the US has deployed its military within beligerent striking distance of Saddam).
Sometimes I get the feeling that those who oppose war haven’t any idea why war is now being proposed… because if they did, they would, I think, propose an alternative… and a viable one at that.
Maoman and Tigerman: As Sir Donald pointed out, the answers to those questions–what are the alternatives to war and what can the UN do–are already the subject of several existing threads. If one wants to engage in heated debate over those issues the other threads are a fine place to do so.
But the subject of this thread is a peaceful demonstration in Taipei, not battle tactics in Iraq. If one believes the war is wrong and wants to join with others opposed to the war, there is no pre-requisite that one must first argue ones position on Segue. As Bartleby the Scrivener said, “I would prefer not to.”
On behalf of the Saddam Hussein Fan Club (ROC Branch), I’d like to thank all of you for your support. We will be selling Anti-War T-shirts featuring Saddam Hussein’s portrait at Taipei’s Anti-War March on Feb. 15. Price is only 500NT (cash only). Please show your support for our great leader Saddam Hussein and march against the war.
My initial statement that foreigners who participate in protests in Taiwan face possible deportation is correct. However I, too, think the PROBABILITY of that happening is very low. I just think that people in attendance should be aware that police do have the authority to detain and deport foreigners under those circumstances. If things get out of hand (not all that unusual for “peaceful” demonstrations) or the police start checking ID’s for whatever reason, you probably don’t want to stay around.
This is not a misconception based on a single incident in 1994 (nice try, though). Taiwanese elections or independence do not have to be the subject of the protest for foreigners to be at risk. (There was another thread somewhere about foreign missionaries facing deportation for participating in protests over changes to the laws governing foreign workers in Taiwan. I hope they weren’t actually deported, but am not sure what the outcome was.)
I personally find the whole idea of an anti-war protest sophomoric at best. The idea that people are either for or against “war” doesn’t make any sense at all. Of course, ALL reasonable people find war disgusting. It is just that mature adults realize that military force is sometimes the only reasonable alternative. The idea that America is for “war” and Saddam H is for “peace” borders on insanity.
But, if you’re into anti-war rallies and think they can actually accomplish something, by all means go and have a great time. Spend the day with a few dozen --probably more accurate than the few “thousand” Mother T predicts-- people of like mind. Change the world. Sing a few rounds of “Michael Row the Boat Ashore.” Maybe you can even make up some special verses about how evil the US is. (If you plagiarize the “Bomb Iraq” lyrics, you can look really smart without actually having to come up with any original ideas.) But, if you do see any Americans passing by, be sure to thank them for all of the lives their country has sacrificed making it possible for people around the world --including those of you spouting anti-American hatred-- to speak freely. I can’t think of any place on the planet that enjoys freedom of speech and assembly today other than as a direct result of US military action in the past or US military strength in the present.
Foreigners who go surfing at Daxi also face deportation. Like participating in protests, surfing is an activity not covered on a foreigner’s ARC. Surfers watch out.
What a mature attitude Congratulations on your maturity. There are also those of us who think you should stand up for what you believe in and protest what you believe is wrong. There are those of us who believe that war is not the only alternative. If you disagree that’s no reason to take such a patronising attitude - “you don’t agree with me? That’s so immature”
The idea that any of us believe this, is not just insane but stupid. You really think that those of us opposed to war in Iraq support Saddam Hussein. Jesus, not more of this ‘if you’re not for us you’re against us’ mentality.
And you perhaps wonder why Americans often get a reputation for arrogance. Do you really believe this statement you made? Weren’t thinking very hard were you?
Thank you! And as a token of our esteem, the Saddam Hussein Fan Club (ROC Branch) will be saving a Saddam Hussein Anti-War T-shirt for you at the Anti-War March. Just stop by our booth (the one with gas tanks and masks on display) and pick it up.
Ah, well. I entered into this fray, I suppose I must make a few comments, especially as Tigerman says in another thread that no one ever rebuts his rebuttal.
To start with an easy one:
[quote] Quote:
Mucha (Muzha) (Muzha) (Muzha) Man wrote:
Does being a Bush supporter mean you have to be as linguistically inept as he is?
tigerman wrote:
I don’t know. Does being a Bush critic automatically mean that you are really clever and sophisticated? [/quote]
I’ll say yes if you do.
[/quote]
Mucha (Muzha) (Muzha) Man wrote:
Quote:
Let’s look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
Huh?
Are you being purposively obtuse here? Have you not heard the suggesion (whether true or not) that the president is using Iraq to deflect attention from the economy, the environment, the erosion of civil liberties, etc. Not very well informed of you, is it? Silly you.
Of course I have heard the “suggestions”. But, after September 11th, the reason for Bush’s actions and policy in the mid-east appear rather obvious to me. Not agreeing with silly “suggestions” doesn’t make me silly. Maybe it makes me a “big old prick”, eh?
[quote]
Sorry, but saying “Huh?” usually indicates that one does not understand at all what has been said. It is disingenous of you now to say that you were simply not agreeing with the silly suggestion. And in any case, you make my initial point by agreeing that the point made in the chant was one that is well known and hence food for satire.
Oh, and please tell us what channels (physical or otherwise) you have to inform you of Bush’s intentions in the Middle East. His is one of the most secretive administrations in recent history. Don’t you feel you are being a bit naive to suppose your government is truly informing you of it’s motives?
Salon writer Scott Rosenburg wrote recently:
Mucha (Muzha) (Muzha) Man wrote:
Quote:
Sir Donald Bradman wrote:
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq,
The US has plenty of support from other nations regarding Iraq. What does this line mean? Its just stupid, in light of the facts.
Muchaman:
Again, are you just willfully ignoring the international criticism, especially at the beginning, towards any action against Iraq? Garnering support has been difficult. There’s no debate about that.
Tigerman:
I’m not asserting that garnering support has not been difficult. I am refuting the statement that the US has “no allies”. How is it that you don’t understand this simple issue? Are you being willfully obtuse? [/quote]
The US stated that it would act unilaterally if necessay. I should have made this point since the line in the chant obviously supports this interpretation. The line reads “If” not “since”. Why is it you don’t understand this simple grammatical issue?
As for “allies”, yes, I probably should have explained more that I was using the word loosely, though in any case, I should not have used it to refer to the people of the US. Point taken. However, I think it obvious you can read into the line “support in general” for “allies.”
[quote]Mucha (Muzha) (Muzha) Man wrote:
Regarding your criticism of the little ditti:
Quote:
The UN is not looking for weapons. Why do people keep repeating this inaccuracy?
Muchaman:
Perhaps headines to CNN broadcasts like “The Hunt for Weapons” as seen on TV last night might explain the “innaccuracy”.
Tigerman:
Yes, of course. But when so many people criticize CNN for “bias”, how is it that so many of these same people then accept and repeat what they see and hear on CNN? [/quote]
Talk about an irrelevant rebuttal. Who are these people, where do they live, or at least how do they identify themselves online? As far as I know the only one who brought up CNN was me.
Your long answer to the question of what the weapons inspectors are doing in Iraq should have been made in the first post. It was more informative and neutral. Instead, in your first post, you slammed those who (who?) keep repeating that the weapons inspectors are there looking for weapons. I showed that the news is the source of this “error.” You then admitted, with apologies, that you were wrong and the inspectors were now, in part, looking for weapons.
The reason I suggested you might be a prick was largely because the point of your origanal post was to score points. (Yes, it was!) You wanted to show how well-informed you were compared to those silly anti-war types who only (watch CNN?). You called silly points which alluded well to controversial statements, or attitudes of the US government. It was apparent you did so not in the spirit of debate but in the spirit of mocking those you consider ill-informed. Of course it turns out that some of these straw men aren’t so mis-informed as you originally stated.
Never once did I say that taking liberties with the facts was okay. But I’m not so naive to believe that one, I or anyone else in the general public have all the facts, two, that facts are neutral when it comes to interpretation. Or didn’t they teach the latter in fundamentalist school?
Tigerman wrote:
Where have you gotten your opinion (and opinion it is) that satire works best when it is based on facts? This seems a fairly slanted asssement to me, one based not on any objective facts at all, but your personal preferences.
As for “Lack of objectivity”? That’s rich coming from you. The satire obviously “worked” for a number of people. That’s an objective fact. You, however, cannot accept this and so try to prove that the satire is mendacious to the core as so invalid as a piece of writing.
Now I suppose as he was reading the above Tigerman was making suckling noises, feeling that I had betrayed myself here. Aha, he is thinking, “You admit that the satire is not based on fact. Or, you admit that you don’t care if it is based on fact.”
Actually, I make no such claims, and it is disingenuous to make them for me. In fact, I have not once made any claims about my personal feelings toward the satire (or the possible war with Iraq) other than to say that it is satirical, or sarcastic. Truth be told, it’s worth is suspect in the long term. It achieves too much by mere alluding to circumstances that have the appearance of wrong but can be easily defended.
I invite Tigerman to read Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”. The most famous piece of satire in our literature, and not a “fact” as you would call it, in sight.
Tigerman, I entered this post because I couldn’t believe anyone ridiculous enough to attack the chant as you did. It’s been fun, but I am “shoving off” now. (Oh, by the way, your “shove off mate” reply may be why others, on other threads, feel you respond violently when people disagree with you.)
The record’s stuck, the record’s stuck, the record’s stuck…
What I am wondering is who is organising the demo in Taibei. Is this a foreigner thing? Do the organisers have any idea how many people will be there? Will they even be there themselves? Why is it at the Legislative Yuan rather than the AIT or the British equivalent?[/quote]
[quote=“Juba”]The record’s stuck, the record’s stuck, the record’s stuck…
What I am wondering is who is organising the demo in Taibei. Is this a foreigner thing? Do the organisers have any idea how many people will be there? Will they even be there themselves? Why is it at the Legislative Yuan rather than the AIT or the British equivalent?[/quote]
The original post links to the WILF (Women’s International League for Peace or Freedom) group, but a look at their listings for Feb. 15 makes no mention of any activities in Taipei.
They sound like crackpots to me – check out a report on their Swedish branch, where they held a meeting “to discuss disarming the EU and the US.” They did not care to elucidate on the site as to how these people (they claim to have 1,500 members in Sweden alone) would go about doing this. Pity. It would have made interesting reading, I’m sure.
Just read ANOTHER article regarding the ambitious plan that President Bush is set to persue, so I thought I’d revisit this question once again:
previously I replied to the above inquiry as follows:
[quote]Well, I read alot, and the Bush administration has made his policy quite clear. The idea is that in order to deal with Islamic fanaticism/terrorism, the middle east must undergo reform. President Bush was the first US president to endorse a Palestinian state… and pledged US support for the same… provided the Palestinians dump Arafat and his corrupt PA and establish democratic institutions and elect a leader democratically and begin respecting the rule of law. The second step in battling Islamic terrorists is to facilitate further democratization in Iraq, and simultaneously disarm that nation so that it cannot provide WMD to Islamic terrorists. After Iraq has been disarmed and stablized, it is hoped that the reform movement in Iran will pick up momentum and the Iranians will feel less threatened by Iraq and look inward to further reforms there. If Iraq, Palestine and Iran can be democratized, this is expected to place pressure on other mid east regimes to do the same. All of this also is expected (hoped) to stop mid east nations from cultivating hate directed at Israel and the US from false media reports and education policies, both directed by those mid east nation’s governments. Its an ambitious and bold plan, to say the least… but something new has to be attempted… past efforts have all so far failed and the stakes are now too high to continue with failed policies of the past.
I have read about this plan many times in many sources. I’m surprised that you aren’t aware of this yourself.[/quote]
But today I read an excellent article in the New Yorker, and I quote a portion of the same below:
[quote=“New Yorker”]Because this war is not being undertaken in direct response to a single shattering event (it’s been nearly a year and a half since the September 11th attacks), and because the possibility of military action against Saddam Hussein has been Washington’s main preoccupation for the better part of a year, the case for war has grown so large and variegated that its very multiplicity has become a part of the case against it. In his State of the Union address, President Bush offered at least four justifications, none of them overlapping: the cruelty of Saddam against his own people; his flouting of treaties and United Nations Security Council resolutions; the military threat that he poses to his neighbors; and his ties to terrorists in general and to Al Qaeda in particular. … Yet another argument for war, which has emerged during the last few months, is that removing Saddam could help bring about a wholesale change for the better in the political, cultural, and economic climate of the Arab Middle East. To give one of many possible examples, Fouad Ajami, an expert on the Arab world who is highly respected inside the Bush Administration, proposes in the current issue of Foreign Affairs that the United States might lead “a reformist project that seeks to modernize and transform the Arab landscape. Iraq would be the starting point, and beyond Iraq lies an Arab political and economic tradition and a culture whose agonies have been on cruel display.” The Administration’s main public proponent of this view is Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, who often speaks about the possibility that war in Iraq could help bring democracy to the Arab Middle East…
… People in the [Bush] Administration are quick to explain that, where the Middle East is concerned, they don’t mean immediate, American-style electoral democracy but, rather, a deliberate building of “civil society” or “democratic institutions,” like a free press, political parties, open markets, and a system of written laws and courts that administer them, with national parliamentary elections as the final, and somewhat distant, step…
… One can easily derive from Wurmser’s book a crisp series of post-Saddam moves across the chessboard of the Middle East. The regime in Iran would either fall or be eased out of power by an alliance of the radical students and the more moderate mullahs, with the United States doing what it could to encourage the process. After regime change, the United States would persuade Iran to end its nuclear-weapons program and its support for terrorists elsewhere in the Middle East, especially Hezbollah. Syria, now surrounded by the pro-American powers of Turkey, the reconfigured Iraq, Jordan, and Israel, and no longer dependent on Saddam for oil, could be pressured to co?perate with efforts to clean out Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. As Syria moved to a more pro-American stand, so would its client state, Lebanon. That would leave Hezbollah, which has its headquarters in Lebanon, without state support. The Palestinian Authority, with most of its regional allies stripped away, would have no choice but to renounce terrorism categorically. Saudi Arabia would have much less sway over the United States because it would no longer be America’s only major source of oil and base of military operations in the region, and so it might finally be persuaded to stop funding Hamas and Al Qaeda through Islamic charities.
… A few things should be said about this vision of the near-term future in the Middle East. It is breathtakingly ambitious and optimistic. It might plausibly be described as a spreading of democracy but, perhaps more important, it would also involve, as the “Clean Break” paper said, forcefully altering the regional balance of power. And it differs greatly from the vision of the future of the Middle East that will prevail among liberals, both here and abroad, after the war in Iraq. It treats Pan-Arab nationalism as illegitimate. It does not accept the widespread assumption that no regional good can follow the fall of Saddam unless peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority begin immediately. And it sees the fall of Saddam Hussein less as the end of a great diplomatic and military effort than as a step in an ongoing process.[/quote]
This would an example of bifurcation. The old “If you’re not with us, then you’re against us” weak argument. I am honestly disappointed. I would expect such comments from tealit.com, but here on segue? I’m getting a little worried, kids.
Please stick to the topic of this protest. I would really, really like to go as I have never been a fan of resorting to violence to stop violence and doubly so of violence to stop what a few think might become violence, much less the Bush regime, but I have to teach at that time and I have already had to cancel four lessons because of my vacation so I can’t cancel this one. I do support those who can make it out to the protest and I will be there with you in spirit since I can’t be there in person.
Don’t worry Imani, it sounds like it may only be a handful of Swedish, lesbian, anti-globalization crackpots anyway, along with me and Sir Donald carrying “Make Love not War” signs, Blueface taunting us from the sidelines, and Sandman tagging along to see what it’s all about. As for suebush, who started this whole discussion, she’s been awfully silent lately. Where is she? Does she really exist? Will there be a rally? I’ll let you know if I find out.
Sorry, but for me it’s not theory…it’s very personal. I served in Vietnam and my daughter is with the 82d Airborne Division. I have no plans to cower around anti-war protestors like I did when I came home 30 years ago. And I doubt my daughter will be either.
No, it’s oversimplifying the issue. Just because I don’t think we should go to war doesn’t mean I support Sadam Hussein either. Reminds of that other shallow American bifurcation of anyone who disagrees with Bush’s policies is anti-American. That statement is ripe with irony.
I believe there are better options out there than going to war and Bush is simply refusing to try any of them which I disagree with. In protesting the prominent war, I am not saying that I support Hussein, but rather that I am against going to war…that’s why it’s call an anti-war protest. Not a pro-Sadam Hussein rally. Don’t put words into my mouth. Trust me, I’ve got plenty of my own.
I am not saying that you are wrong for being in the military nor your daughter which has nothing to do with this protest or forum, but rather, I am against war when there are other ways around this without bloodshed thus why I would participate in this protest if my situation allowed. There’s nothing personal about this protest or making facetious remarks like yours. I was merely saying that your post attempts to paint things in a black-or-white picture with no room for shades of grey which only points to a weak argument on your part.
If you wish to further discuss your reasons on why we should go to war in Iraq, there is a thread set aside for that. This one, however, is reserved for the anti-war protest that may take place on the 15th.
I for one would love a peaceful solution to the current Iraq problem, if a good alternative were presented (I know, another thread), but I am curious what the folks in Taiwan hope to Accomplish.
Do you picture Pres. Bush sitting in his big chair. about to push the button… but what is this, they are protesting in Taiwan. I guess we have thought this thing all wrong. Lets change all of our plans.
Not to knock Taiwan (as most of us on this board love this country, each in our own way), but I don’t think that Taiwan carries a whole lot of weight in the international politics arena. US may even get further with the UN by opposing Taiwan (to the glee of China).
I also wonder if the same protesters would be out in force if we were to oppose force with force if and when big brother China ever came knocking on Taiwan’s door.
Congratulations on your maturity. There are also those of us who think you should stand up for what you believe in and protest what you believe is wrong. There are those of us who believe that war is not the only alternative. If you disagree that’s no reason to take such a patronising attitude - “you don’t agree with me? That’s so immature”
They did not care to elucidate on the site as to how these people (they claim to have 1,500 members in Sweden alone) would go about doing this. Pity. It would have made interesting reading, I’m sure.