Freethought & Rationalism Archive

paris · 03-18-2003, 01:51 PM

Atheist

Social Democrat (member of the French Socialist Party)

Against war.

1) I have a very good Irakian friend. And when you know a friendly man from one place, you think twice before sending bombs on his relatives.

2) Democracies do not strike first. We have to reply firmly when we are under attack. But as far as I know, we are not attacked here.

3) Through a French myself, I hate the foreign
policy of France during the 20 th century, and I am very sad to see United State, the counrty of the heroes of my childhood, behaving as France or UK used to behave in the past in their
colonies. France has committed an unbelievable number of crimes in the arabic world, especialy in Algeria. Why do you absolutly want to follow our bloody path.
You have saved the world from communism and nazism, you are an exceptional country, and I am deceived to see that, this time, you just act as an ordinary country, i.e. you use strength to protect to interest. In one word, I am deceived to see that the members of the american government behave as if they were french !

NB: there is certainly not 20 % of muslims in France. It is probably around 4 % of the citizens and 7 % of the population.
In some cities, it can be more of course more,
up to 40 % percent in some places - where it is better not to be jew. Many of these "muslims" are more or less non-believers (and married with "natives"). Well, many of them are fundies also, but this is an other problem. In France, for example, such a forum would be imediatly poluted by some muslim activists posting verses from Kuran or from Mein Kampf and refusing to answear to women...
but such fanatics form a minority (active but small) of the french muslim minority. Same think for Italia or Germany. In UK and Nederland, the
muslim community is smaller but seems to be more influenced by fundamentalists.

Secular Pinoy · 03-18-2003, 05:18 PM

Hello paris! Welcome to the eye-eye. If you don't mind, won't you introduce yourself here. I hope you stay and participate in the various forums. Thanks!

FoE · 03-18-2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by EarlFlynn
I'm an atheist and a democratic socialist.

I'm against the war.

The evidence would seem to indicate that Saddam isn't a very nice guy, and that the people of Iraq would be better off if someone else (most especially, the Iraqi people themselves) were in charge.

If the motives of the Western world really were pure, then shouldn't we simply try Saddam for crimes against humanity? Gee, it's too bad there isn't some kind of international court that could handle such a task...oh, wait! There is!

If I ran the world, this would be not a military operation, but a law enforcement problem. Use the minimum force necessary to bring Saddam and his cronies to justice, give aid to the Iraqi people to fill in the power vacuum, and let control of Iraqi natural resources remain in Iraqi hands. I.E., no cushy contract for Haliburton after the war.

Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we aren't going to be seen as complete hypocrites, we should apply justice equally to all nations, regardless of the abundance or absence of desirable resources.

It's clear to me that this war was never about terrorism or any potential threat from Saddam. It's all about controlling wealth and making sure that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

And because I live in the Western world, I'm partly responsible.

This is a pretty accurate depiction of my feelings towards this war.

I'm an atheist and my political leanings are complex, on some issues i support the New Democratic party and on others the Liberal Party, with a strong streak of anti-authoritarianism.

markstake · 03-18-2003, 08:32 PM

Religion: Undecided. Nothing I've seen so far, that's for damn sure.

Politics: Fiercely capitalist. Possibly libertarian, or something similar. (btw, I've never read Ayn Rand).

War Stance: Pro.

As far as legality, we're covered. Resolution 1441 was supposed to be the last chance. The only reason they even went for another resolution was because Blair was badgered into it. Bush never really wanted to try for another one to begin with.

For morality? Saddam is evil, and he's gotta go. He tortures his people, invades other countries, and would use his weapons of mass destruction on us (the U.S.) if he could. It would only be a matter of time. Sure, he isn't attacking at this moment, but there is no doubt in my mind that he would if given the chance, and given the time he would find the chance. I'm not a believer in waiting for a bully to punch you first. (I'd have to say that arguments by the Bush administration are pretty weak, but I still agree with the end decision).

There never really was a 9/11 connection. If you look you can find articles dating from back before the towers fell about Bush, Cheney , and Rumsfeld addressing the fact that Iraq wasn't complying with UN resolutions. What 9/11 really did was provide a backdrop that made a preemptive strike more palatable to many people in the U.S. and around the world.

The true test, I think, is how things are handled after the war. The result of the war itself is practically a foregone conclusion. How the aftermath is handled will define the real meaning of this war and what it means to the U.S. position in the world.

Christian · 03-19-2003, 05:28 AM

Christian
Republican
12 years and counting in the U.S. Army

I see war in general as a necessary evil in this world. God has delegated authority to governments to execute justice by enforcing internal laws and by waging wars. I've chosen to make myself a servant of the state, and as a soldier I am neither hawk nor dove. I serve the political process best by being politically indifferent and tactically competent.

I see a scriptural basis for and purpose for war, but have come away completely unsatisfied every time I've looked seriously into
Just War Theory (which seems to be more about Greek philosophy and Roman law than it does about distinct Christian thought.)

As a voter and citizen of the United States, I'm opposed to the imminent war against Iraq. Pre-emptive war is a huge policy shift for the United States. I believe this war could be a horrible precedent. I trust President Bush's decisions for the most part, but there is no telling who will be in office 10 years from now or what kind of crazy things they might do under a policy of pre-emptive war.

However, my role as a soldier takes clear priority over my role as a citizen as long as I'm wearing the uniform.

Respectfully,

Christian

paul30 · 03-19-2003, 05:50 AM

It seems that without question the greatest threat to peace in the world is not Saddam Hussein but George W. Bush.

Is Hussein threatening his neighbors? No. Is he threatening the region? No. Is he supplying Al Qaeda? No--according to both the CIA and MI6. who would both love to say yes.

Is Bush threatening the Mideast. Big time. Is Bush threatening to use nukes. Absolutely--and he has them. Is Bush supplying terrorists. Yes. The New York Times reports that Bush's steamroller toward war on Iraq is now being used--very effectively--as a recruiting tool.

We need regime change all right.

Regime change in the US.

Mike Rosoft · 03-19-2003, 08:34 AM

Atheist, liberal.

My opinion on the war is ambiguous. I agree that Hussein is a cruel dictator, and I will not regret him a bit if he gets kicked in the butt, just like I don't regret the Taliban. In other words, in principle I have no objections against his overthrow.

On the other hand, it is questionable whether military invasion in Iraq is the best thing we can do for its people and for the rest of the world. Civilian casualties are the first problem. The second one is, what's next? Will another dictator come on Saddam's place, as bad as him?

Had USA (and other countries) supported the rebels after the war in the Persian Gulf, they wouldn't have to solve the problem today. The fact that they left them to be defeated makes me doubt if democracy is really their goal.

Mike Rosoft

Ray K · 03-19-2003, 09:02 AM

Atheist. Moderate.

I'm definitely in favor of removing Saddam from power as long as a democracy is set up to replace him.

I believe that self-government is a fundamental right and I also believe that Bush, in his own incompetent way, is actually doing the right thing for the right reason. It took him a while to figure out what that right reason was, but he did finally stumble across it.

Tony Blair, OTOH, seemed to have a firm grasp of the right reason from day 1.

If the events of 9/11 precipitated the demise of two brutal regimes (Afghanistan & Iraq), then we will have more than honored the deaths of those 3000+ victims.

Screw France. Their willingness to forego the principles they embodied in the Statue of Liberty has now rendered the UN Security Council irrelevant.

peacenik · 03-19-2003, 09:50 AM

I am a Christian that rejects any literal interpretation of the Bible other than the general teachings of Jesus Christ like those found in his Sermon on the Mount.

I have been a lifelong democrat, but currently I am so disgruntled with the party's refusal to stand up to Bush on this issue of war that I am flirting with the idea of voting for a third party candidate if Howard Dean or some other Democrat who strongly opposes this war without any doublespeak doesn't win the nomination.

I oppose this war because it is an act of agression against a sovreign nation that has neither attacked us nor threatened to attack us. Saddam is an evil man, but he does not pose a real threat to us, and contrary to Bush's propoganda he is not likely to attack us unless provoked. After all he hasn't attacked us since 1991, and all of his atrocious actions that are constantly reffered to by the Bush administration in order to justify war took place during the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, during which we actually propped up Saddam's regime and continued to supply him weapons and support throughout the war despite his numerous crimes against humanity. Even his invasion of Kuwait occurred one week after our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, told Saddam that the U.S. would remain neutral in any conflict between Iraq and Kuwait.

Furthermore, this attack will only stregnthen al-Qaida by further enraging the Arab world and thereby making their young men more likely to join the ranks of al-Qaida. Also the idea of liberating the Iraqi people by killing, maiming, and making homeless hundreds of thousands of them is ridiculous. The attack will likely result in a war between the Kurds and the Turks, and this conflict could potentially result in another World War poerhaps this time with both side possesing nukes if for example (1) either Pakistan and/or Saudi Arabia fell to fundamentalist regimes that would support Iraq (this is not out of question given the anti-American sentiment in those nations) or (2) Iraq lobs a skud or two at Israel and Israel responds in kind by nuking Bagdad, killing hundreds of thousands, which could also then result in other Arab nations standing behind Iraq and against the state of Israel(i.e. this may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back).

03-18-2003, 01:51 PM	#61
paris Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: France Posts: 16	Opposed Atheist Social Democrat (member of the French Socialist Party) Against war. 1) I have a very good Irakian friend. And when you know a friendly man from one place, you think twice before sending bombs on his relatives. 2) Democracies do not strike first. We have to reply firmly when we are under attack. But as far as I know, we are not attacked here. 3) Through a French myself, I hate the foreign policy of France during the 20 th century, and I am very sad to see United State, the counrty of the heroes of my childhood, behaving as France or UK used to behave in the past in their colonies. France has committed an unbelievable number of crimes in the arabic world, especialy in Algeria. Why do you absolutly want to follow our bloody path. You have saved the world from communism and nazism, you are an exceptional country, and I am deceived to see that, this time, you just act as an ordinary country, i.e. you use strength to protect to interest. In one word, I am deceived to see that the members of the american government behave as if they were french ! NB: there is certainly not 20 % of muslims in France. It is probably around 4 % of the citizens and 7 % of the population. In some cities, it can be more of course more, up to 40 % percent in some places - where it is better not to be jew. Many of these "muslims" are more or less non-believers (and married with "natives"). Well, many of them are fundies also, but this is an other problem. In France, for example, such a forum would be imediatly poluted by some muslim activists posting verses from Kuran or from Mein Kampf and refusing to answear to women... but such fanatics form a minority (active but small) of the french muslim minority. Same think for Italia or Germany. In UK and Nederland, the muslim community is smaller but seems to be more influenced by fundamentalists.

03-19-2003, 05:50 AM	#66
paul30 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA USA Posts: 870	Bush is the threat It seems that without question the greatest threat to peace in the world is not Saddam Hussein but George W. Bush. Is Hussein threatening his neighbors? No. Is he threatening the region? No. Is he supplying Al Qaeda? No--according to both the CIA and MI6. who would both love to say yes. Is Bush threatening the Mideast. Big time. Is Bush threatening to use nukes. Absolutely--and he has them. Is Bush supplying terrorists. Yes. The New York Times reports that Bush's steamroller toward war on Iraq is now being used--very effectively--as a recruiting tool. We need regime change all right. Regime change in the US.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-18-2003, 05:18 PM	#62
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Hello paris! Welcome to the eye-eye. If you don't mind, won't you introduce yourself here. I hope you stay and participate in the various forums. Thanks!

03-18-2003, 08:32 PM	#64
markstake Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Iowa Posts: 42	Religion: Undecided. Nothing I've seen so far, that's for damn sure. Politics: Fiercely capitalist. Possibly libertarian, or something similar. (btw, I've never read Ayn Rand). War Stance: Pro. As far as legality, we're covered. Resolution 1441 was supposed to be the last chance. The only reason they even went for another resolution was because Blair was badgered into it. Bush never really wanted to try for another one to begin with. For morality? Saddam is evil, and he's gotta go. He tortures his people, invades other countries, and would use his weapons of mass destruction on us (the U.S.) if he could. It would only be a matter of time. Sure, he isn't attacking at this moment, but there is no doubt in my mind that he would if given the chance, and given the time he would find the chance. I'm not a believer in waiting for a bully to punch you first. (I'd have to say that arguments by the Bush administration are pretty weak, but I still agree with the end decision). There never really was a 9/11 connection. If you look you can find articles dating from back before the towers fell about Bush, Cheney , and Rumsfeld addressing the fact that Iraq wasn't complying with UN resolutions. What 9/11 really did was provide a backdrop that made a preemptive strike more palatable to many people in the U.S. and around the world. The true test, I think, is how things are handled after the war. The result of the war itself is practically a foregone conclusion. How the aftermath is handled will define the real meaning of this war and what it means to the U.S. position in the world.

03-19-2003, 05:28 AM	#65
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Christian Republican 12 years and counting in the U.S. Army I see war in general as a necessary evil in this world. God has delegated authority to governments to execute justice by enforcing internal laws and by waging wars. I've chosen to make myself a servant of the state, and as a soldier I am neither hawk nor dove. I serve the political process best by being politically indifferent and tactically competent. I see a scriptural basis for and purpose for war, but have come away completely unsatisfied every time I've looked seriously into Just War Theory (which seems to be more about Greek philosophy and Roman law than it does about distinct Christian thought.) As a voter and citizen of the United States, I'm opposed to the imminent war against Iraq. Pre-emptive war is a huge policy shift for the United States. I believe this war could be a horrible precedent. I trust President Bush's decisions for the most part, but there is no telling who will be in office 10 years from now or what kind of crazy things they might do under a policy of pre-emptive war. However, my role as a soldier takes clear priority over my role as a citizen as long as I'm wearing the uniform. Respectfully, Christian

03-19-2003, 08:34 AM	#67
Mike Rosoft Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Prague, Czech Republic Posts: 965	Atheist, liberal. My opinion on the war is ambiguous. I agree that Hussein is a cruel dictator, and I will not regret him a bit if he gets kicked in the butt, just like I don't regret the Taliban. In other words, in principle I have no objections against his overthrow. On the other hand, it is questionable whether military invasion in Iraq is the best thing we can do for its people and for the rest of the world. Civilian casualties are the first problem. The second one is, what's next? Will another dictator come on Saddam's place, as bad as him? Had USA (and other countries) supported the rebels after the war in the Persian Gulf, they wouldn't have to solve the problem today. The fact that they left them to be defeated makes me doubt if democracy is really their goal. Mike Rosoft

03-19-2003, 09:02 AM	#68
Ray K Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 290	Atheist. Moderate. I'm definitely in favor of removing Saddam from power as long as a democracy is set up to replace him. I believe that self-government is a fundamental right and I also believe that Bush, in his own incompetent way, is actually doing the right thing for the right reason. It took him a while to figure out what that right reason was, but he did finally stumble across it. Tony Blair, OTOH, seemed to have a firm grasp of the right reason from day 1. If the events of 9/11 precipitated the demise of two brutal regimes (Afghanistan & Iraq), then we will have more than honored the deaths of those 3000+ victims. Screw France. Their willingness to forego the principles they embodied in the Statue of Liberty has now rendered the UN Security Council irrelevant.

03-19-2003, 09:50 AM	#69
peacenik Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Knoxville, TN Posts: 331	I am a Christian that rejects any literal interpretation of the Bible other than the general teachings of Jesus Christ like those found in his Sermon on the Mount. I have been a lifelong democrat, but currently I am so disgruntled with the party's refusal to stand up to Bush on this issue of war that I am flirting with the idea of voting for a third party candidate if Howard Dean or some other Democrat who strongly opposes this war without any doublespeak doesn't win the nomination. I oppose this war because it is an act of agression against a sovreign nation that has neither attacked us nor threatened to attack us. Saddam is an evil man, but he does not pose a real threat to us, and contrary to Bush's propoganda he is not likely to attack us unless provoked. After all he hasn't attacked us since 1991, and all of his atrocious actions that are constantly reffered to by the Bush administration in order to justify war took place during the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, during which we actually propped up Saddam's regime and continued to supply him weapons and support throughout the war despite his numerous crimes against humanity. Even his invasion of Kuwait occurred one week after our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, told Saddam that the U.S. would remain neutral in any conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. Furthermore, this attack will only stregnthen al-Qaida by further enraging the Arab world and thereby making their young men more likely to join the ranks of al-Qaida. Also the idea of liberating the Iraqi people by killing, maiming, and making homeless hundreds of thousands of them is ridiculous. The attack will likely result in a war between the Kurds and the Turks, and this conflict could potentially result in another World War poerhaps this time with both side possesing nukes if for example (1) either Pakistan and/or Saudi Arabia fell to fundamentalist regimes that would support Iraq (this is not out of question given the anti-American sentiment in those nations) or (2) Iraq lobs a skud or two at Israel and Israel responds in kind by nuking Bagdad, killing hundreds of thousands, which could also then result in other Arab nations standing behind Iraq and against the state of Israel(i.e. this may be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.