It is said that the oilsands (Currently under development) in Northern Alberta may have more than all of the current middle east.

I sure hope Canada isn't invaded next.

I cannot stand the "no blood for oil" bullcrap.</font>[/QUOTE]It is cringeworthy, and why I wouldn't even consider participating in a peace march. Do you know, Yorick, that Bob Brown (leader of greens ;) ) uses the war for oil argument? It's embarrassing. I used to respect him [img]graemlins/awcrap.gif[/img]

<font color='white'> This is a honest question...Why are canadains so paranoid about being invaded? I am not sure if you ment the above line as a joke or not, but I have seen several canadains talk about fear of being invaded....Seems like a distant shot to me. </font>

Sorry Iron Ranger, I thought it was obviously a joke because I didn't know how anyone couldn't think otherwise.

My point is if oil was the reason why would they have to go to Iraq when they could look North towards our regime and free us from dictator Emperor Chretian(Another Joke), they would get water to boot.

Oil is obviously not the most important reason if it is a reason at all.

I cannot stand the "no blood for oil" bullcrap.</font>[/QUOTE]It is cringeworthy, and why I wouldn't even consider participating in a peace march. Do you know, Yorick, that Bob Brown (leader of greens ;) ) uses the war for oil argument? It's embarrassing. I used to respect him [img]graemlins/awcrap.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Bloody heck. :(

Mind you, it's always been wierd that Mr.Brown leads the Greens though don't you think? ;) :D

Alot of peace demonstrators oppose war for moral, religious, and spiritual reasons.

Some have concerns of geo-political stability in the region and fear that western militarism plays into the ideology of terrorists like UBL that the US is out to conquer culturally, economicly, and militarily there fore breeding new terrorists for generations to come.

I wholeheartedly discredit the "no war for oil" idea only to the extent that the long term strategic value of Iraq to the United States can only be a factor and not incidental to a course of invasion and regime change. The U.S. is definitly banking on Iraq being a new friendly "partner" in the middle east.

Ultimately there is a diverse selection of "anti-war" perspectives to choose from and a vast majority of pro-peace demonstrators have done so peacefully, with somberness and prayer as well as chants and song.

As far as rioters go, a few morons do not change the integrity of well-thought-out and compassionate ideaology on eitherside of the fence.

It is a sense of compassion that leads humanity to call for an end to suffering, that compassion is the core of the pro-peace movement that doesnt get the headlines.

<font color = lightgreen>I agree that the best of those who strive for peace feel that way, Chewbacca, but my question is this: how will peace demonstrations ever get rid of people like Saddam Hussein?

Ghandi was able to bring about change in India, Germany reunited, and the Czech people liberated themselves, but in those cases the governments were ready and/or willing to vacate power. Massive student protests in Tiananmen Square resulted in a disaster because the power structure in China was not ready to abdicate; neither was Hussein.
Sometimes it takes a violent revolt or military action to bring about change for the better. A shame, yes, but reality isn't always nice.

Getting back to the original topic...peace protesters aren't always violent towards the police. There are some people who use the peace movement as a cover just to stir up trouble because they have nothing better to do. I agree that there is much fear of the police among those who strive for peace, but there is also a history of governments being rather stern in response to what they perceive as a "revolt".</font>

<font color="#ffccff">Unfortunately for me, every single peace protest I have been around has been marked by violent disrespect for the police and their authority, bottles thrown, windows smashed, businesses disrupted...just seems to me that if you are really for peace, you would avoid this kind of violence. I do not blame the police officers for being swift and preemptive n their measures to head this kindo f thing off...they are after all out numbered in most cases.....And yes you can say it isn't the peace protestors that do these things, but they are the ones organizing the event..they should bear the responsibility that they only recruit people who will not be destructive to their cause.

I respect the idea that people have a right to protest, but it seems there is just no way to do it that won't give violent groups cover to produce mayhem :( </font>

Those of you who believe that the war was fought for oil are going to have an almighty shock in the coming months when the new Iraqi government honours the multi-billion dollar contracts that have been signed between Iraq on one hand and France and Russia on the other.

Unlike the people on the pro-war side that have actively and publicly advocated disrupting peaceful peace protests, or attempted to run down peace protesters on the sidewalk with their vehicles, or the people that counter-deminstate at peace rallies with signs stating peace protester should be shot as traitors.
Yup the pro-war people are all model citizens.

Of course the evening news never spends the time to cover the vast majority of peaceful peace protests, instead they focus on the handful of people in a crowd
of thousands that want to start a ruckus.

edit:
also to all those hung up on the 'no war for oil' thing just keep this in mind:
Those that say this is a war for oil are naive, and those that say it is not are equally so.
Do some digging into the overall Bush doctrine on the Middle East and you will find that they have stated having a 'friendly' pro-democratic regime in Iraq (which has the 2nd largest known oil reserves in the world) are key to their long range plans to completely make over the region.

[ 04-10-2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]