In our name

Not again...
Please lets drop this topic and make some skins.

paxx

making skins are great, but thanks for posting the link.

* sigh *

You know, the words all start to resound in the teachers voice from Peanuts now when I read this kind of jingo jango junk.

But sides of the issue are tired...

* sigh *

Thanks for the link.

All right then. Only fair to supply the link to the other side then: http://www.notinourname.net

Nice one paxx.

Thanks for the link Griff.

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/sonar.html



Flahs animations, this person is very good...

This is the one to watch!

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/corrections.html

Clever, cynical stuff there...

Funny but pretty typical leftist drivel I must say. Sometimes I think "anti-war" people are just more interested in showing how anti-American they can be. Or at best, they like to rant to other people who already agree with them since they seem so inept at actually convincing anyone who disagrees with them of the validity of their position.

I suppose I could assign some graphics designers to make a flash cartoon where peace demonstrators are actually shown to be guards at a concentration camp to illustrate the net effect that they would have if they were successful.

Or maybe show them as grim reapers over millions of dead soldiers and civilians due to inaction on Iraq until the day he got nuclear weapons and began using them and supplying them to terrorists.

Or at least, that would be just as valid as flash cartoons using the crass moral equivalenece iPlural just showed. What's next? a flash cartoon showing the 9/11 hijacking to be something that Americans really deserved?

Don't kid yourself, the anti-war position is not the moral high ground. Or at the very least you are not going to convince those woh disagree with you that it is.

Come on, even the US is divided on the issue.
It seems that, although a small majority of Americans are generally in favour of attacking Iraq, most are opposed to attacking Iraq without first getting an OK from the UN.
Peace demonstrations throughout the World - AND IN THE US - are the biggest ones since the Vietnam war.

All these American people are Anti-American, I'm sure.

Please don't serve us that Bush crap "You're either with us or against us". It is POSSIBLE to disagree and not yet be anti-American.

Oh, and just in case you're tempted to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein, I'd like you to read this article too: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

Let's try to avoid strawman arguments.

1) 67% of Americans are in favor of military action even WITHOUT the UN explicitly giving its approval. Only 20% are opposed (Gallup poll from Monday). The rest are undecided.

2) I did not claim that anyone who is against the war is Anti-American. Why I have said is that the most vocal anti-war people seem to be anti-American first. The protests, for instance, were organized by ANSWER, the advocacy group of the political party "Worker's World" which believes in the overthrow of the US constitution in favor of radical socialism. And is extremely anti-American. Additionally, the flash cartoons shown are more about how bad the United States allegedly is rather than arguing that somehow Saddam isn't a monster. So don't serve that over generalization crap.

3) I do not believe Saddam was connected to 9/11 nor did I imply. I've written many pages on this issue and have never once implied that I thought he was involved.

But since we're throwing articles around, here are some for you:
http://bargarz.blogspot.com/2003_01_19_bargarz_archive.html#87773098

Goes over just how Iraq has been violating the UN resolutions.

Let me add to this:

What really pisses me off isn't that someone is for or against military action.

What pisses me off are people who trivialize other people's positions. And I see this much more on the "anti war" crowd.

I'll write some 3 or 4 page post on the issue only to have some "anti war" guy come and dismiss what has been written with a 1 line quip. Or see protesters who try to paint those who disagree with them as being stupid or war mongering or immoral or greedy or worse. They never seem to want to address the actual concerns and issues. Issues that aren't the result of war mongering or ignorance but rather careful consideration.

That's why flash cartoons like the one iPlural showed are so typical. Griffinme makes a post with a link to a site that argues FOR what he believes in.

iPlural, by contrast, shows up with links to flash cartoons that patronize and ridicule those they don't agree with.

It never seems to be "we're against the war because of valid reasons A, B, and C." it's often "we're agains the war because we think the people for war are a bunch of stupid moronic evil greedy war mongers who just want oil!"

I find that highly offensive. That's why I find such flash cartoons obnoxious. And also highly hypocritical because these guys are the first ones to scream in the name of political correctness if those they disagree with resort to similar tactics.

If you're against military action, then make your case. Ridiculing those you disagree with is only going to harden opposition against you (and indeed, polls in the US show American support for military action INCREASED after the so-called big protests -- which weren't that big btw here in the US -- they were smaller than the pro-life / pro-choice rallies this week they just dont' get as much coverage).

Frogboy! I've been reading here and other places long enough to know you're a reasonably intelligent guy - therefor you should know that polls are utter BS! In fact, I can quote from today's issue of the post (er, the Washington Post,):

"On Iraq, which is likely to dominate political discourse in the coming months, the president has slipped but still has relatively high support. Fifty-seven percent of Americans back military action, down from 62 percent in mid-December; similarly, 50 percent of Americans said they approved of Bush's handling of the Iraqi situation, down from 58 percent a month ago."

Oh yeah - and the anti-war demonstrations are still numbering in tens of thousands of people at a time out here.

5 hours after 9-11 who did you think about might have done it? The Swedish, or maybe the Jamacians? Or maybe it was People living on Reindeer Island in Manitoba. After 5 hours not a whole lot to work with and he was just making plans. repeat plans. I made plans to go grocery shopping yesterday, but I never carried it out.

Actually Frogboy ease up, that was the point, it is funny.

funny yes, but misinforming. Joe doesn't get off the hook for his crimes just because John and Jim sometimes commit the crime as well.

Iraq signed an agreement which stopped the gulf war, and US troops were withdrawn from Iraq on the condition that Iraq would hold to the agreement. Iraq has not kept the terms of disengagement, and reengagement and resumption of hostilities is the legal remedy available to the US under international treaty convention which has been recognized and followed for centuries if not always codified in minute detail.
Should the US hold Iraq's feet to the fire to honor the previously signed agreement? That is a valid question.
Whether the US has the legal right to hold Iraq to the ceasefire agreement is not a question at all.

Should the UN be consulted on this breach of treaty between two countries? Probably, if we want to give everyone in the world that warm fuzzy feeling that their opinion on the issue really matters.

BKB....so are you saying that 'everyone in the world's opinion on the matter DOESN'T matter, only the US opinion?

That's mighty nice of you....

Iraq signed an agreement which stopped the gulf war, and US troops were withdrawn from Iraq

No, Troops enforcing the UN position were withdrawn from Iraq.
Sure, the majority were US, but it is an extremely important distinction.
That's like saying 'Australian troops were withdrawn from Timor'.
Slanted and clouding the issue.
In both cases action was taken, and 'ceased' on direction of the UN [with UN approval].

The fact that the UN is often regarded as a paper tiger is unfortunate and will only be seen more so as such if and when member nations [that's what the US is, after all] take it upon themselves to act outside of its recommendations, no matter how 'noble' the cause.

It annoys me that some, perhaps many in the US dismiss external legitimate opinion and concern as if they, themselves are the only people on the planet affected by whatever form of military action is imminent.
Just to note....the Aussie SAS is on their way there now...and the frustrating thing is that the vast MAJORITY of people in Oz are not impressed.
The one saving grace is that the Anti-Viet-Vet sentiment for 'lost causes' won't affect the SAS....being 'hidden operatives'.....but it's sad when people are forced to fight and die for something they may just not agree with doing.

BTW...this is NOT 'US-bashing', it is balance restoration....

Again, I could type tomes on this argument/discussion, but I genuinely type two-fingered....

Jafo

What, you would like an equitable world to be based upon people being equals?

Oh you silly man you..

Thanks for the input JAFO, and i do understand your points. anyone who lives in the world we have now knows that the various (alleged) national opinions do matter in varying degrees. the problem is often one of perspective:

when you see your country at the top of the terrorists' hit list, for whatever reason, and a dove from a "safe" country starts pontificating on the finer moralities of your wanting to strike back at the terror network and sponsors, it's extremely hard to listen with an objective ear. the comments we hear from many non-ams are often couched in such a manner that they go past stating what course of action we should take, and, presuming a total moral superiority, press on to telling us how we should feel and how we should think in the most nauseatingly pompous manner. My earlier post suffices in regard to people with that attitude.
The conservative says: "Your opinion is probably as good as mine, but lacking any concrete proof, I'll go with mine".
The liberal says: "My opinion is undoubtedly the moral high ground, and you're a jingoistic warmongering fascist bully for even daring to think differently than me".
When a person speaks from a country where mass murder is perpetrated by terrorists from the outside on the home turf, his opinion carries more weight.

"but it's sad when people are forced to fight and die for something they may just not agree with doing" that's a "sad" fact of every war, just and unjust, that's ever been fought! i'm a vietnam vet, so you're preaching to the choir on that one.