On February 15, against the war.

Ikarus7 · Post by **Ikarus7** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:43 am

If you didn't know...

The first worldwide rally against war in Iraq will take place on February 15.

I know many people who just don't care because they believe it will be resolved with time, and that nothing need to be done.
I personnaly believe that if we don't do something the war will start, and the end of it all could be not as near as some people believe.

I hope i'm not the only one that believe that this war is inevitably stupid.
Maybe this demonstration won't change a thing but we gotta try, 'cause I really think some people a toying around with humanity without really taking time to think.

For more information you consult this website
http://www.internationalanswer.org/

Well, I just hope that I won't be the only one trying to stop this war in days.

Oh, and sorry about the poor grammar and/or syntax, I have too many things to do tonight, without enough time...

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 2:20 am

Well, I won't be taking part in that rally. I am not opposed to war with Iraq (but this country called Irak intrigues me).

OverLord · Post by **OverLord** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 3:12 am

Ikky! Where the hell have ya been these days?

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 3:56 am

Anyone who is opposed, should attend. After all, it's your voice. Use it or lose it.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 3:57 am

Or use it and have the government tell you to fuck off anyway.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 3:58 am

So where is the rally to support Nuking the Faulkland Islands?

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 6:22 am

On one of the Faukland Islands.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 7:16 am

Daki wrote:Well, I won't be taking part in that rally. I am not opposed to war with Iraq (but this country called Irak intrigues me).

I think a lot of languages write it "Irak."

Bishop wrote:On one of the Faukland Islands.

Or perhaps on the Falkland Islands.

The Traveler · Post by **The Traveler** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 7:24 am

French Canadians, I've found, write it "Irak," and it is printed as such in their news sources.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:06 pm

The right wing cynic in me hopes it rains that day.

Serious Paul sets off to organize the first prowar demonstration...

Shit, Fox News beat me to it....

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:32 pm

I think a lot of languages write it "Irak."

Really? I had no idea. Please forgive my ignorance on that part.

Ikarus7 · Post by **Ikarus7** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 8:02 pm

Stupid double post...

Ikarus7 · Post by **Ikarus7** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 8:02 pm

In french canadian its writen Irak... but I really wasn't sure. Its one of those word I never really remember. If The Traveler and Dennis had not told me I would have though that it was my mistake.

Sowhat · Post by **Sowhat** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 7:15 am

They say that it's the world wide or international rally, but I don't see where it says they are in other countries. I couldn't find Australia. It's obviously not the international rally day, because in Melbourne the main peace rally is on Friday the 14th.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 7:29 am

Well since Oz is how many hours behind the US with its different zones? What time are the US rallies? It could simply be asd simple as the date line. That or the Aussies just can't be bothered.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 8:11 am

Flak, honey, we're /ahead/. We're at GMT +10. So our Friday is the US Thursday.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 12:50 pm

Ack! Right to left! Right to left!

Yeah well, what can you expect from Aussies? They probably all just made the same mistake as I did. Yeah, that's it.

Liniah · Post by **Liniah** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 11:01 pm

Damn, I was going to make this thread and then I forgot. For those of you in the Chicagoland area, here is your important infor for Feb. 15:

International day of protest against war on Iraq

12 noon 2200 W. Devon (Devon & Leavitt), Chicago (in the heart of the Pakistani community)

for more info contact 888-471-0874 or email at CCAWR@aol.com

If anyone from this area is interested in events, let me know and I will continue to post them. In the past when I have mentioned them, I haven't gotten any response, so I haven't bothered to put anything up. There are several events (including a rally and march against the army add campaign targeting minority youth and a gay mariage rights march) coming up in the near future. If you're interested, just say so!

Liniah · Post by **Liniah** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 11:04 pm

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 11:14 pm

march against the army add campaign targeting minority youth

I love it. Everyone claims that not enough employers recruit minorities, and when someone tries to do that, they protest.

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 8:17 am

I'll be joining the anti-war march in Amsterdam: Damrak @ 13.00.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 2:41 pm

Moo wrote:I love it. Everyone claims that not enough employers recruit minorities, and when someone tries to do that, they protest.

Especially since the American military is composed primarily of white americans (Well over 70% if I remember correctly)

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 3:30 pm

ur... isn't the Daytona 500 this weekend??

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 9:59 pm

Daki wrote:
Moo wrote:I love it. Everyone claims that not enough employers recruit minorities, and when someone tries to do that, they protest.
Especially since the American military is composed primarily of white americans (Well over 70% if I remember correctly)

One of the few places in America where minorities are over-represented in what are very good and secure jobs, and people bitch about it being racist because these are the people sent to fight.

Fuck that. It's an all volunteer force. My dad spent 30 years in the Air Force, rising to the rank of Colonel. It was (and is) a career path that virtually all Americans have equal access to. You want to join the military? Sign up. You want to go to college and be an officer? They'll pay for it. The only thing required from the person is hard work and dedication. And now we have to take flak for being racist because people have chosen to accept the risks in exchange for the possible rewards. Bah!

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:01 pm

Gunny wrote:ur... isn't the Daytona 500 this weekend??

No biggie. Race fans and peace march fans have only a small crossover demographic.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:43 pm

Bethyaga wrote:
Gunny wrote:ur... isn't the Daytona 500 this weekend??
No biggie. Race fans and peace march fans have only a small crossover demographic.

I'd be more willing to see either if the Daytona 500 was set up in the middle of the peace march (one of many). it would be like Carmageddon!!! LIVE!! talk about ratings! people would be drawn to watch it because it would be so horrible! like a train wreck but with dozens of brightly colored race cars! YAH!

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:40 pm

Shoot, I'd watch...

Liniah · Post by **Liniah** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:47 pm

Daki wrote:
Especially since the American military is composed primarily of white americans (Well over 70% if I remember correctly)

Well, that's good, considering blacks only make up 12% of the US population. If blacks and Hispanics are proportionally represented then 70% is about what it should be. (15% of Americans are Hispanic.)

However, even if the army is proportionate now, that doesn't mean that they should target minoritys more in their advertising campaigns. If it's proportionate now, they should keep doing what they've done in the past in terms of race.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 12:16 am

Why not? I mean, I see the general "Let's play fair" argument, but minorities are disproportionately represented in poverty, so the military has more to offer for them. It's a nice little paradox that the military has great need for highly trained, professional and hard working troops, but that most people with those qualities end up using them in the private sector.
Poor people who are capable but not in the best of environments for success (you hear a lot about people who work their way out of the ghetto, but that's usually a measure of just how hard it is, and I've run into a few guys who used the military to get out of gangs in the old neighborhood), have more to gain than kids who went to boarding schools in switzerland. Yes, gain. When we're not being shot at, and not everyone who wears a uniform is out on the front lines, we get a low but steady paycheck which is adjusted for your family circumstances.
I don't get paid for each kid, but the fact that I have a family is factored into my pay, and I can have a house that is provided or money to pay for a house on the local economy. The educational benefits are 50/50 since you might not have time to go to classes until you get out, but if you can make the time you can prep yourself to get a better job than the jizz mopper at the local Swank Spank. So I'm a little confused as to why targeting the marketing to people that are more likely to need the military and hence, be more receptive to the advertising, is a bad thing.

Liniah · Post by **Liniah** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 12:53 am

WillyGilligan wrote:I mean, I see the general "Let's play fair" argument, but minorities are disproportionately represented in poverty, so the military has more to offer for them.

What, like death? I don't think it's a coincidence that these adds come out when the whole Iraq thing is going on. Do you really think they're making those adds to help them? I mean, what better people for the government to send away to die than the poor. Then the Georgiepooh doesn't have to worry about welfare and the economy quite as much if they lose them. It's sick.

Ryan Murphy · Post by **Ryan Murphy** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 12:58 am

So you'd prefer to see them here, poor, and /still/ ignored by Bush insofar as welfare and economics go? Fair 'nuff.

Sowhat · Post by **Sowhat** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 1:24 am

An article on the Melbourne Peace Rally and an indication of just how many people were there (They say 250,000 but I'm sure it must have been closer to 300,000).

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:18 am

Liniah wrote:However, even if the army is proportionate now, that doesn't mean that they should target minoritys more in their advertising campaigns. If it's proportionate now, they should keep doing what they've done in the past in terms of race.

That's crap. Really it is. That people will come out in favor of Michigan State's blatantly lopsided admission policy encouraging diversity, but then blast the military for this... that's crap.

"Oh, we've reached our quota... we can stop now. Find some other way to help minorities get ahead. Oh yeah, I know this one works really well, but we're full now."

So they have ads that target minorities. So what? They have ads that feature white soldiers. They have ads that feature a mix of backgrounds. So what? When Pepsi wants to sell product, they analyze their target markets and they tailor ads specifically for each market. Some Pepsi ads feature only white people. Some only blacks. In some areas, Pepsi ads are entirely in Spanish. So what?

If 30% of the military's new recruits are minorities, then wouldn't it make sense to keep targeting that group (as well as others) so as not to lose market share, as it were?

Calling the military racist for targeting blacks in their ads is political correctness carried to its ugliest ends. Stop it.

Do you criticize clothing companies that target minorities? Do you criticize soft-drink companies for targeting minorities? No. Then why criticize the military? I'll tell you why, because you're working from the assumption that joining the military is an inherently bad thing, and therefore, pushing off this evil on minorities is racist. It's crap.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:20 am

Sowhat wrote:An article on the Melbourne Peace Rally and an indication of just how many people were there (They say 250,000 but I'm sure it must have been closer to 300,000).

Uh... people in favor of a particular rally always overestimate the turnout. Always. Why would you think that they gave a low number in this case.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 3:22 am

What, like death? I don't think it's a coincidence that these adds come out when the whole Iraq thing is going on. Do you really think they're making those adds to help them? I mean, what better people for the government to send away to die than the poor. Then the Georgiepooh doesn't have to worry about welfare and the economy quite as much if they lose them. It's sick.

Wow. I'm absolutely flummoxed. Let me start by saying that Uncle Sam is not in the habit of 'sending people off to die'. Soldiers are sent to kill, with the potential of dying in the process. The way modern war is fought makes it fairly difficult, to say the least, to put "Sambo Regiment" out in front to take the shells. The closest thing to a battle division that protects the priviliged is the officer/enlisted split. Mind you, in the Air Force, who gets most of the press in modern warfare, we may be the only service in the world who sends it's officers to fight while the enlisted guys stay home in the air conditioning.

Do I really think that the ads are made to help them? Well, let's try this on for size. Is there a section in your local paper called "Help Offered"? How about "Help Wanted"? The ads are there to bring in new recruits, and just like any company looking to hire, there has to be a benefit for the potential employee. That's the nice thing about the US military, we're all volunteer. Unfortunately, when any geek off the street who could spell BIOS could get an entry level job making $50k a year, not many folks' hearts were bursting with patriotism. So recruitment has been falling off, but some walls still have to be guarded, and people who are poor and/or in high school have more need than others for a steady paycheck and free medical.

Not to mention the education benefits, of which I'm eligible for: Tuition Assistance (75%, potentially moving soon to 100%) while I'm Active, GI Bill, which I can access now or wait till I get out and use, and the Community College of the Air Force (I can get a degree based on credits for my technical school once I take a few additional courses). So not only am I getting my three hots and a cot, but the capability is there for me to pursue self-improvement, meaning that I don't have to be stuck in poverty after I get out. So, it's about four years, depending on some circumstances, plus being inactive reserve till you hit eight total years, in exchange for possibly having to risk your life, which ignores all the support personnel (cooks, finance clerks) that are wearing uniforms too.

Oh, and I'm about to hit the sack like it owes me money, but the thought just occured to me; what is the evidence of targeting? I mean, how do you know that recruitment ads are 'unfairly' targeting minorities? Do we have any hard data on this?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 3:50 am

Liniah wrote:
WillyGilligan wrote:I mean, I see the general "Let's play fair" argument, but minorities are disproportionately represented in poverty, so the military has more to offer for them.
What, like death? I don't think it's a coincidence that these adds come out when the whole Iraq thing is going on. Do you really think they're making those adds to help them? I mean, what better people for the government to send away to die than the poor. Then the Georgiepooh doesn't have to worry about welfare and the economy quite as much if they lose them. It's sick.

Oh my god. Do you seriously mean to assert that the President is involved in a multi-level, several-million-dollar conspiracy to save funding for welfare by recruiting poor black people into the military so they get killed in action? Do you seriously think the cost of the marketing campaign is offset by the savings in supporting the 500 people who might die in the upcoming conflict?

Which unsupported assertion is less likely: that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, or that this Rage Against the Machine man's-keepin'-me-down peace-love-and-bullshit conspiracy theory is valid?

Ryan Murphy · Post by **Ryan Murphy** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 4:03 am

WillyGilligan wrote:Wow. I'm absolutely flummoxed. Let me start by saying that Uncle Sam is not in the habit of 'sending people off to die'. Soldiers are sent to kill, with the potential of dying in the process.

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, Drill Instructor wrote:A rifle is only a tool. It's a hard heart that kills. If your killer instincts are not clean and strong you will hesitate at the moment of truth. You will not kill. You will become dead Marines. And then you will be in a world of shit. Because Marines are not allowed to die without permission! Do you maggots understand?

Sowhat · Post by **Sowhat** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 5:51 am

Bethyaga wrote:Uh... people in favor of a particular rally always overestimate the turnout. Always. Why would you think that they gave a low number in this case.

There mightn't have been 250,000 people there at one time, but heaps of people left after between an hour & an hour and a half. Considering it started around 4:30, but it didn't start moving anywhere until around 6:30, people got fed up of waiting. But there were more people arriving until well after 8, and people had been leaving aswell, so in total I imagine the turnout was a lot more, just not all there at the same time.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:01 am

Sowhat wrote:There mightn't have been 250,000 people there at one time, but heaps of people left after between an hour & an hour and a half. Considering it started around 4:30, but it didn't start moving anywhere until around 6:30, people got fed up of waiting. But there were more people arriving until well after 8, and people had been leaving aswell, so in total I imagine the turnout was a lot more, just not all there at the same time.

If you though of that--so did they. The 250,000 estimate will have included all the in and out traffic plus a little padding (and then round up to nearest impressive figure). Part of a rally is the bragging rights, and I'm sure they know the most advantageous way to count.

If you are actually right and 300,000 people really were on site that day, then the news would have had it reported as 300-350,000.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:06 am

Sowhat wrote:There mightn't have been 250,000 people there at one time, but heaps of people left after between an hour & an hour and a half. Considering it started around 4:30, but it didn't start moving anywhere until around 6:30, people got fed up of waiting.

Hhmm, feel that dedication. Although as you said, others kept coming later. I'm always a bit sceptical about these things though, especially on contentious issues like this. Half the time the turnout seems to be a collection of the usual suspects and large sections of people that seem to view it kind of like a day out. But that could be me being a bitter cynical bastard.

Sowhat · Post by **Sowhat** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 6:08 am

That depends. The Age headline said that protesters "clogged" the city streets, and that word has negative connatations, so maybe the media want it to sound smaller than it was. I really don't know. But I'm not sure what side the media are on, and whether they want it to look less significant than it was or if they want to sound a lot bigger.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:52 am

Liniah said:

What, like death? I don't think it's a coincidence that these adds come out when the whole Iraq thing is going on.

Me either. I mean why would the Military want to recruit any one after the country had suffered from a major terrorsit attack, and was pubicly clamoring for war, physically preparing for war and deploying combat troops with all their support units.

Utter Lunacy!

Why would they capitolize on the average citizens urge to fullfill his patriotic duty and fight for his country?

Again madness.

Why would anyone who was poor facing a job market that was filled with service sector jobs that were paying minimum wage want to better themselves by joining the Military, where they get regular meals, and a paycheck?

The end is nigh.

Do you really think they're making those adds to help them?

How does it hurt them?

I mean, what better people for the government to send away to die than the poor.

Have you been watching reruns of Platoon again?

Then the Georgiepooh doesn't have to worry about welfare and the economy quite as much if they lose them. It's sick.

3278 couldn't have said it better. I have to be honest Lin, I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.

Sure the poor have died for their country. Sure some of the people in the Military came from disadvantaged backgrounds. But this isn't Hamburger Hill. This isn't Platoon.

The military is made up of the lower middle class. Average kids with average dreams.

Sure it sucks that they have to die sometimes, but bullets don't have melatonin sensors, and an American Uniform and crew cut means you are a soldier regardless of what color the GI beneath it is.

As an example of Company that not only targets minorities but also gangs, I submit McDonalds. Watch some McDonalds commercials after reading a few hours on gang symbols and colors. Then see what you say.

Companies target their consumers. Its how they make money. Why would Uncle Sam be any different?

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 7:56 am

If you though of that--so did they. The 250,000 estimate will have included all the in and out traffic plus a little padding (and then round up to nearest impressive figure). Part of a rally is the bragging rights, and I'm sure they know the most advantageous way to count.

If you are actually right and 300,000 people really were on site that day, then the news would have had it reported as 300-350,000.

Ah i see!

Kinda like the 300 thousand man march a.k.a. 'the million man march'.

Van Der Litreb · Post by **Van Der Litreb** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 8:11 am

"Oh, we've reached our quota... we can stop now. Find some other way to help minorities get ahead. Oh yeah, I know this one works really well, but we're full now."

So you don't see a problem of a having a poor-man's army protecting rich people's interests?

Do you criticize clothing companies that target minorities? Do you criticize soft-drink companies for targeting minorities? No. Then why criticize the military?

Because the military _isn't_ a privately owned company?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 8:24 am

Van Der Litreb

So you don't see a problem of a having a poor-man's army protecting rich people's interests?

One. Are their intrests any different?

Two, it isn't a poor mans Army. The Military has demographics just like any place else. Not every one who enlists or is commisioned is poor or facing poverty.

Oh and can we identify what the intrests are here?

Because the military _isn't_ a privately owned company?

Indeed it isn't. Niether are most corporations. Most are traded pubicly with any one who has money being allowed to buy shares.

The Military is part of the wordls largest most powerful public corporation. The United States of America.

Also why can't the government emulate techniques that prove successful for corporate America? I mean if they have to use an entirely different set of rules to recruit qualified staff, isn't that silly?

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:05 am

I mean, what better people for the government to send away to die than the poor.

I'd just like to say this is utter crap. Do you honestly think that you just show up at the recruiters, sign some papers, they hand you a gun and place you on the front lines? Do you not have any concept of how expensive it is to train a soldier? According to the officers I studied under when I was in ROTC (Air Force), one of the instructions that pilots are given is "If you can't save the airplane, eject. It costs us less to build an airplane then to train one of you."

I am where I am today because of the military. All the advantages I have can be indirectly linked to the Military. Both of my grandfathers fought in WWII. They both went to school on the GI Bill. My paternal grandfather got his MD on the GI Bill. The Air Force paid for my father to go to college (BS and MB). They trained him for 20 years so that when he retired he could get a kick ass job and pay for me to go to college. I have no student loans thanks to the military.

The military is an excellent opportunity for poor and disenfranchised. It gives them a chance to better themselves. It teaches them what life is like with 3 square meals a day, and a clean bed to sleep in. Even if they never go to school, that lesson is more valuable then you can imagine. One of the reasons we have generation, after generation of welfare families is because their children know no other way. But you teach these kids what it means to sleep in a clean bed, and always have a full stomach.... and they will bust their ass for the rest of their lives to keep it that way. And their kids will get the same, and maybe they will go to college. And their kids will be the ones that make it to corporate CEO.

You think that just because the Military has commercials that target minorities, they don't have commercials that target other demographics? When I was in highschool, the damn Marines wouldn't leave me alone. Kept trying to convince me that I should enlist.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 10:23 am

I must submit that if the President is clever enough to conceive of the brilliant conspiracy above, then he is also likely clever enough to utilize and even more insidious strategem: to lower the government's economic cost of supporting the poor by raising recruiting rates in the areas where they live, thus providing those people with a clean, honest living, and putting them back in those neighborhoods with discounted rates on college and their shot at whatever career they'd like.

Why does every conspiracy have to be evil? Can't they be trying to improve the quality of life for those poor and disenfranchised in the inner city, who may /never/ know a better chance for a better life than military service?

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 8:45 pm

3278 wrote:Why does every conspiracy have to be evil? Can't they be trying to improve the quality of life for those poor and disenfranchised in the inner city, who may /never/ know a better chance for a better life than military service?

Because it lets liberal peaceniks feel good about themselves?

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:03 am

Because military training doesn't develop creativity, but perfect drones who never question orders? And by extention, their government?

Because said recruits are still less likely to attain officer positions than those from expensive colleges with ROTC programs? And because that could be seen as using the poor as a form of slave labor?

[sarcasm]Nah, not our country. We couldn't be any different than every other country in the history of the world, right? [/sarcasm]

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:28 am

Because military training doesn't develop creativity, but perfect drones who never question orders?

Of course it doesn't. That's why my Father, a 20 year veteran of the Air Force, raised a child who plays roleplaying games. nope. no creativity here. BTW, I often call my father for help with my RPG campaigns.

I love it when stupid people start spouting off about things they do not understand.

Because said recruits are still less likely to attain officer positions than those from expensive colleges with ROTC programs?

Many, if not most, ROTC programs are in state schools. Do you have any numbers of how many officers come from ROTC programs vs. OTS/OCS? And don't count the people in ROTC who are former enlisted going to school on the GI Bill. When I was in ROTC about 15% of the students were former enlisted on the GI Bill.

And because that could be seen as using the poor as a form of slave labor?

Except slaves aren't paid. The Military is. It's a minor difference I suppose, but I think it might be important.