Amen-Moses

Against the war, atheist liberal democrat.

I am appalled at the lies and misinformation that have been promoted by the so-called democracies of the west in order to try and justify what is basically going to be a massacre.

If my government and that of the US had just told the truth and laid out reasonable evidence then I may have been persuaded otherwise but they failed miserably. This in my opinion is a damning indictment of Bush and Blair and everything they stand for and I cannot support such underhand tactics even if it turns out that they are right, the end does not justify the means imo.

Amen-Moses

Thor Q. Mada

Atheist, against the war in a very strong way.
Saddam is of-course a murderer and a thug, and his end would come anyway.
But the lies to get there where the ferret with the beady eyes in the White House wants us to go are just disgusting.
On top of that , killing thousands of innocent Iraqi conscripts must be ethically wrong, but it is apparently not wrong for the bible readers. Shows you how evil this book is.
Also, I have always had the suspicion that we are actully carrying out some Israeli plan. This is because I cannot believe that we would go to war only to prevent face-loss for Bush and Blair.
And for those that are now France bashers, please note that the majority of the population in Europe, and that includes Spain and the UK by the way, is unbelievably against this war.
Unlike the anti war sentiment during the Vietnam era, this time it is all layers of the population.
I also wonder why the Americans don't have the feeling that their patriotism is stolen from them, and misguided now against a country who had nothing to do with 9/11

fiddler

Your figures are low even when utilizing the 1999 population breakdown for France. In 1999 the was an overall population of 60, 754,698. Of that total there were about 6,000,000 Muslims. Whether or not we wish to question their degree of practice is debatable. For census purposes they elected to state for the record that they were in fact Muslim. In addition, there are many Muslims in France that had difficulties immigrating into the country. Due to misunderstandings about French laws many Muslims felt they were being discriminated against by the government. So, many to this day still choose not to disclose that they are Muslim.

Utilizing the 1999 figures yields a 9.875% of the population. In the four years that have lapsed since the last census a number of sources, including Muslim sources claim that the increased influx of Muslims into France is actually closer to the 20% figure. This is probably due to France's close ties with Iraq which would tend to mark it as a beacon for Muslim immigration. Meanwhile, I'll try to track down the sources I garnered that 20% figure from. It may be slightly high, but in 1999 it was essentially 10%. It is not unreasonable to venture at least a 15% level today due to rapid immigration. One only has to examine the rapid increases in other countries of the EU.

I hope that clarifies my point and figure to you.

seanie

Fascinating.

Except that under French law religious identification cannot be gathered by the census.

So when you say;

You are in fact talking crap.

seanie

The current population of France is estimated at between 59M and 60M.

Now as I've already said religious information cannot be gathered under French law. Hence figures for the number of Muslims are based on smaller surveys and estimates based on ethnic background. Basically those of North African extraction and elsewhere are considered 'Muslim' regardless of whether they are practicing or not.

Hence the lack of firm figures.

To indicate this you could look at the following;

The CIA hedges its bets at 5-10%.

This gives a figure of 3% but indicates their figures are a bit out of date and the true figures could be higher.

This lot reckon 7%.

Here they identify 1% as Muslim based on them being North African workers, with a 6% undetermined that presumably could contain a sizeable number of Muslims. That's still a maximum of 7%.

The Bible Society of South Africa says 6.3%.

I'll quote from this site;

These people reckon 3M or 5%.

This bloke says "a population of over three million Muslims."

This article talks of an "unwieldy minority of 5 million Muslims" which would be about 8.3%.

Here it says;

That's in the region of 7%.

Here they reckon 3%.

This article reckons "the best estimates of the country's Interior Ministry put France's Muslim population at four million, two million of them French citizens" or about 6.7%.

So forgive me if I continue with my provisional conclusion that your 20% figure is bullshit.

Oh and my slightly more tentative provisional conclusion is that your 9.875% is probably shit as well.

Shit to three decimal places but shit nonetheless.

seanie

Apologies theophilus, I'm sorry for disrupting you thread.

I'll take my leave.

paul30

I am completely opposed to this war, as I was completely opposed to the Gulf War.

What did the Gulf War get us? Nothing, as far as I can see. It "liberated" a feudal, despotic regime which allows slavery but happens to favor US oil companies.

That is what this war is about. Three things: oil, oil, oil.

It is certainly not about democracy. Geo. W. doesn't like democracy; why should he? He has said he would rather be a dictator, and he has moved steadily toward being one. Now he believes he is the Emperor of the World.

The rest of the world does not agree, and not only will Iraqi civilians pay the price for George's delusions, so will we here in the US.

I believe Bush's war, even if quick and decisive, will not lead to peace but to a worsening mess in the region. The simmering anti-Americanism we see now will explode into raging worldwide anti-Americanism. We will see terrorist backlash in the US, and redoubled terrorist attacks in Israel. Israel, as always, will retaliate ferociously, and the whole region will descend into a hot war.

This war will not be confined to the region.

Alternative energy is clearly the right first step. In fact, the technologies exist; but the infrastructure to distribute them does not. It is a pity the US government--which has always heavily subsidized new technologies (trains, cars, computers)--didn't subsidize this; but that is because it is owned by the oil companies. (Moreso now than ever.)

Empires usually don't last too long: they are economically untenable and the army usually finds it is easier to play politics at home than defend the provinces abroad. Also, the provinces themselves get uppity and assert their independence.

The US has had a global empire for a hundred years and has dominated most of the world for 50. I think this war, instead of renewing the US's domination, will signal its end.

I am a Buddhist and an anarchist/socialist.

I have already worked for peace, and if or when the peace fails, I will continue to work for it.

War produces war. There is no road to peace but peace.

Secular Pinoy

Filipino living in the Philippines

Metaphysical Naturalist, Moderate-to-liberal

Opposed to unilateral action. I agree with the gist of Robin Cook's resignation speech.

Kenny

I would just like to remind you that both Theophilus and I consider the war to be wrong and we are both “bible readers.” In addition, nearly every major Christian denomination in the U.S. has produced a statement against the war, the most notable exception being the Southern Baptist Convention (which has come out in support of the war ) Most of the professors and students at Fuller Theological Seminary (a world renown evangelical seminary), where I attend, are opposed to the war and many have actively participated in antiwar activities.

However, in spite of all that, it is sadly true that the vast majority of evangelical Christians in America support the war. In my mind this says two things. First, it confirms my recently growing awareness that much of American conservative Christianity has allowed itself to become captive to certain political agendas rather than concerning itself with what ought to be its first and only real business – following the way of Jesus and seeking the Kingdom of God. Second, it means that, sadly, many of our Christian leaders have failed to teach people what the way of Jesus and the Kingdom of God actually entails.

We teach people that the Kingdom of God is pie in the sky when Jesus saw it in terms of God’s delivering reign of justice for the poor and the oppressed, peace, righteousness and Joy in the Holy Spirit, a living present reality to be lived and enacted in the here and now until it reaches its final consummation at Christ’s return. The way of Jesus in living out and bringing this Kingdom was not through military conquest or political force, but through the self-emptying way of the cross. If only evangelical Christians would truly understand this! If only we would take seriously Jesus’ sermon to the Pharisees, “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’” Perhaps then we wouldn’t be so eager to support the slaughter of thousands.

Jesus wept over Jerusalem because it did not know the way that makes for peace. Yet, here we are in America – should we do the same?

God Bless,
Kenny

Feather

Atheist
Political Independent
Neutral tending toward agreement regarding the looming war


I read the resolutions passed in 1991 and since then that are applicable. As painful as it may seem to admit it, I believe they do in fact grant Herr Chimp the legitimate authority to prosecute a war. Resolution 1441 affirms/asserts that Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 678. Resolution 678 authorized military force against Iraq. There is a cease fire--not a peace treaty--in effect. Resolution 1441 asserts that Iraq's omission and equivocation is evidence of further material breach. That is, 1441 was "another chance" for Iraq to comply with 678, and it details that omissions in the report and failure to cooperate would imply further breach. While the nature of the cooperation is dubious, there have definitely been omissions. Saddam is capitalizing on these to his advantage now, I think. But that's probably another thread.

So while it is very razor thin justification, the justification is present.

However, I don't think it was a politically intelligent maneuver on Chimp's part. I think Blair's career is probably over. The US has almost nil credibility internationally at this point thanks to the Shrub's hamfisting of the diplomacy effort. I'm inclined to agree that he wanted war 6 months ago and went through the motions as a PR ploy.

And the war will be expensive and Herr Chimp's idiotic domestic/economic agenda will not help that any. Supply side economics is bad economics, period. Huge tax cuts and huge increases in spending plus financing the war effort alone makes for a recipe for disaster in my opinion.

I am extremely displeased with the Chimp's lying and arrogant disregard for the opinions of the international community. We have to interact with these people, and snubbing them is just dumb. For what it's worth, I also think Chirac's and France's "No War Under Any Circumstances" schtick is old and tired and I can't help but think it has more to do with anti-Americanism than genuine desires for peace. I view it as something quite on par with the nonsense over "freedom fries" (which I view as having less to do with freedom and more to do with knee-jerk response to French anti-Americanism).