Continuing my response to Zoe:
His point (as is what I was noticing at school- hence me saying I was right) is that a lot of the protestors are holding up signs with derogatory terms on them about Bush, or disfigured pictures. They have nothing to do with war, and they have nothing to do with opposing Bush's policies, they are just plain mean (and their argument loses complete credibility with me.)
In the latter section of your post, you provide evidence that these people are definitely anti-Bush, so that's fine and I accept that they are.
But believe it or not, some people will do what they have done even when they don't really hate the person who's face they're um... defacing. Politicians are figureheads, and when their causes suffer, their reputations suffer. People like to grab hold of symbols to take their frustration out on, and a poster with a politician's head on it is a very powerful symbol indeed.
Here in Australia I have seen people defacing the posters of politicians for whom they voted in the last election and will vote for again in the next. It doesn't mean that they're directly opposed to those politicians
qua politicians, but only that they're currently enraged by the
decisions of those men (and women.) I have even seen fervent patriots burning their own flag in a fit of pique.
So not everybody who defaces a poster is necessarily anti-Bush/Blair/Howard, although I agree that many of them probably are.
Also, as has already been stated in a different thread, Clinton bombed Bosnia and Sudan, and he said it was necessary to stop Saddam.
This is true, and I addressed it on another thread.
Where were these people then? They weren't protesting wars then, because Clinton could do no wrong in their eyes. When I said I was right, it was because I meant that my suspicions were right about their motives (the people in my class). I didn't mean that all protestors are anti-Bush.
I don't know where these people were then. Some of them might actually have been protesting against Clinton and Blair's decision. But it is important to take note of the vast differences between Clinton and Blair's offensive, and the one which is currently proposed by Clinton and Blair.
You can review these vast differences here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=675006#post675006
I do think it is possible to be anti-war and not anti-Bush, my brother being the perfect example. But I think I can conclude (and maybe I'm wrong) that when your reasons for being anti-war are because you think Bush is greedy for oil
No, that is not my only reason. It is
one of my reasons, and it is not even the
primary reason. Also, I have good reason to believe that oil is playing a very important part in this war; not only for France but also for America.
Ralph Nader has made this very clear, as someone already pointed out on the forum, here:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/36225.html
If you're not keen on Nader, I have no doubt that there's a wealth of alternative information sources which will confirm the point in no uncertain terms. A Salon.com article (here:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/02/04/bush_oil/) presents a fair summary of the issue, while Britain's
Guardian newspaper argues that
Kuwaiti oil (not Iraqi oil) is the actual target (here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,786332,00.html) Of these two, I find the Salon.com article far more realistic.
I also have a
Pravda article which addresses this question, but I'm not sure if
Pravda is really your cup of tea.
or because Bush shouldn't be president to begin with (going all the way back to the election)
Excuse me, but I'm an Australian. I have absolutely no personal interest in any of your country's politicians. I didn't vote in your election, and just for the record, I believe that Bush won it legitimately.
or if you didn't have any complaints about Clinton's decisions to bomb other countries, etc., that your reasons are ultimately anti-Bush.
No, it is a gross oversimplification to say that if I didn't have any complaints about Clinton's actions, I must necessarily be anti-Bush. This allegation fails to address the political complexities of either case. Also, Operation Desert Fox was not just a Clinton offensive, it was a Clinton/Blair offensive. Clinton is not the issue here; the offensive itself
is.
And as I said before, you can see my post on the subject (here:
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=675006#post675006) if you're interested in knowing why I supported Desert Fox while opposing the current offensive.
About the objectivity of it all, I didn't say that, my brother did, and I think it was also a result of all the other conversations we had on the topic as well as this one.
Fine.
I could have easily just said, well, yeah I like Bush so I'm going all out for this war (or I hate Bush so I'm going to protest), but I didn't. His point was that I thought it through, and looked at both sides, and found more reasons for me to support the war than not.
The problem is that I saw no evidence that you had looked at both sides. In your email you only presented one side of the story without addressing the international politics (or any other significant factor) relating to the issue.
Like I said before, I wasn't specifically looking at the pros and cons of this thread, I was looking at the pros and cons I've seen in my day to day life with the people I interact with. I was just contributing to the thread by saying what it was that made me decide to support the war. Some of my points do coincide with some of the points made on this thread.
I think because you misunderstood who I was talking about that you assumed I was labeling them unfairly. I was just telling how it is in my class. They haven't said anything negative about the war, its all been about Bush. They proudly say they hate Bush, it's just when they go out into the community that they change it to being anti-war.
Yes, I think I misunderstood you, and for that I apologise. A little more clarity from both us would have helped, I think.
I didn't think telling everyone that my brother was anti-war was necessary in that post (in the name of objectivity.)
It would have been better for you to do that, just so we knew that you had an anti-war advocate in your family. This would have been a great way of demonstrating your objectivity.