I have been watching some of the news and stuff, and anti war protests keeping standing out to me. Mainly there big banners that say NO BLOOD FOR OIL. Is it the protesters that are confused about the war, its not about oil. Or does oil have some part to play in it and that i just didn't notice. I thought our objecitve was to change the regime (sorry don't know how to spell it) and make a stable goverment and free the Iraqi people from an oppressive goverment.

And one other thing just might be isolated cases but why are anti war protesters always violent and attacking the police. If there for peace shouldn't they show it by not being violent??

(hopefully you will understand what i mean in all this jumble not the best with writing)

Wrong forum... Check the America at War - War with Iraq forum instead.
As for the rest of your points, I don't even know where to start... ;) But the subject has been beaten to death already over the past few weeks, so just have a look in the above forum for similar discussions.

[ 04-09-2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Dunno much about the oil aspect, but iraq isnt the only source of oil anyway. Didnt I hear something about Iraq not actualy having much of it itself? Anyway, I doubt oil is much of a factor.

The violence of the anti-war campaingers is probably exagerated, after all the media shows the more sensational happening.

Iraq holds about 15-20% of the world's oil supplies. The US buys less than 10% of its oil from Iraq.

Just stating facts. For an analysis of these issues, go to the WAR FORUM.

This thread will likely get locked soon.

well my bad for putting it here. Haven't been on iw for along time so i didn't know but w/e :(

Iraq holds about 15-20% of the world's oil supplies. The US buys less than 10% of its oil from Iraq.

Just stating facts. For an analysis of these issues, go to the WAR FORUM.

This thread will likely get locked soon.</font>[/QUOTE]Isn't there oil in Alaska/South America?

There isn't nearly as much oil in Alaska than Iraq, from what my social teacher tells me

I too see these 'no war for oil' and shake my head. These people are in their own little world. These are the types of people that don't WANT to hear the facts, and go on previous hatred of the United States or our current Goverment.

When you see them with those signs, smile. It's a joke.

First we have a oil pipeline. Second Russia is looking to get big into selling oil. We could have easily geared away from the middle east and heavily sponsered Russian Oil. Third a MASSIVE amount of oil comes from Venasuala. Fourth the goverment just now finally supplied government fund's to put real effort into studying and supporting alternate forms of energy. It would be stupid to go through all this to secure a future pipeline for oil. Ten years ago? sure but not now.

and last there are so many more corruptive and easier ways to secure a oil pipeline for the future. The idea that greedy oil merchants would cut off America (and all that nice money that keeps them up) is so laughable I fell off my chair.

The oil argument is bunk. I will stop there without getting insultive (thank Lil Lil for smacking me in line)

I can think of a lot of reasons for this war (some not so honest) but oil is not one of them.

I cannot stand the "no blood for oil" bullcrap.

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 ]

Up here the prowar-protestors have done nothing unlawful, or despicable merely state their view. The antiwar-protestors have booed a US anthem, burnt a US flag, and attacked a bus full of 8 year olds from new york.

I think protestors in general can get out of hand but up here the score is 3 to 0 in favour of the prowar- protestors. It could be that the groups are smaller and did not confront the antiwar-protestors.

The problem is not everyone is a peace loving war hating protester.

Some are anti-government. Some are anti globalism or anti American. Some are religious or people really against warfare. Some are communist or socialist.

I mean to label them all as "peace" protesters is really a outright scam. I remember a report that showed a lot money funneled in by communist groups.

Then you have pro protesters who will protest america on any soil over any topic. The kind that endorse anarchy and don't mind throwing a rock through a store window. About as peaceful as a sledgehammer.

I dont mind people who are against something for religious or honest views. The kind that can not try to push the police or cause damage. The kind that don't stop traffic in places including ambulances and fire trucks that save lifes. That was beyond repulsive. How would they have felt if it was their loved one that needed that ambulance?

I think some of the protests like that caused a back lash. It only HELPED Bush and not hurt.

If people want to be naive and think people like Hitler could have been stopped with peace and love then so be it. Just do it peacefully. When you obstruct life for normal people or damage property you cross a line. You are then a criminal who deserves the same respect a criminal gets. None

[ 04-10-2003, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Mordenheim ]

Thanks everyone for your input kinda cleared some things up for me. :D lots of good information brought up that i had no idea about. (plenty of food for thought)