Take action!! How many Americans agree with Bush!?!?!?

This is SUPPOSED to be a democracy!!!

Get him out of power! Find out how many people disagree with this war! Australians are organizing themselves: http://www.vicpeace.org/

Get out of your butts and do something about it! If there is someone that can change this whole situation is the American people. It seems pretty evident that all that Bush wants is oil and power...

... or maybe Iraqui is also a threat...

Oh well... 10 years of international "peace" seems to have only contributed for all countries to get their armaments going... :(

No war... peace... but how...?:confused:

Links from sicforums:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17435
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17442
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17436
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17125&perpage=20&pagenumber=1
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17455
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17342
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10026

the problems your having seem to be that your oposition isnt OPOSING where ours is

labor, the greens and the democrats are all against the goverment, combined with the unions and the people that is a farly strong group

eventully costello will be strong enough to remove howard and then we will see some changes

Well, it is a democracy. Bush was duly elected and has a mandate until 2004 at least. Certainly he keeps tabs on public opinion. You can too at The Gallup Organization ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030211.asp). In the latest poll (Feb. 7-9) 63% of Americans support war unless the UN disagrees; then it’s 40%. If you disagree that war is the best choice, you may seek to change public opinion so that war is unsupported regardless. Mass protests and impassioned public speeches that reach a wide audience are ways to effect that.

its really simple

you want peace the FIGHT for it

14 February Melbourne 200,000 say no to war
7,000 march in NZ
Thousands march in Canberra
Mass protests in Glasgow and London
40,000 in a protest march in Amsterdam.
3,000 Jews and Arabs marched together in Tel Aviv.
200,000 Syrians demonstrated in Damascus
massive anti-war rallies fill streets of Baghdad
more than half a million people march on london
three million people march in rome
half a million people rally in germany
About 200,000 demonstrators in Paris
Rallies in Spain draw half a million demonstrators
in Athens 100,000 people demonstrated
100,000 in Dublin
Thousands of South Africa
10,000 people marched through the east Indian city of Calcutta
About 200,000 Syrians demonstrated in Damascus

it means nothing if people sit on there ass and complaine about it
this site is great because it helps spread infomation, but its not enough and its not enough to just go to these protests, you have to get out and TALK to people, write to local members, put presure on those in power

Thanks Asguard. That's precisely my point.


zanket,

I've seen in another thread here that Bush wasn't really elected by Americans. Unfortunatly, I dont know where that thread is...

The group-think feed-back around here is just so much auto-stimulation.

Any of you actually ever had real sex with a girl?

"The little jackal barks, yet the caravan passes." --Arab Proverb

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
This is SUPPOSED to be a democracy!!!

Umm...it IS a democracy. Bush was duly elected, for better or for worse. Vote against him in '04.

Many of course will dispute the "duly" part of that...but short of any impeachment attempts, we're stuck with what he decides. The only methods we have at this point are public influence on him and other officials, being a representative democracy.

The case for impeachment is there, but would it help? Cheney would be the next in line, probably with a pardon ready...but impeachment would only be against Bush, not the whole administration. It'll take another election to switch gov't policy.

There would be no chance of an impeachment, even if the House could make a case for one. It would have to be decided in the Senate, and 1) Republicans control the Senate 2) Even if the Senate felt he was impeachable, it is not likely it would happen. The scandal of an impeachment during an international crisis? Even some democrats would be hesitant to vote 'impeachment' for that very reason. If ever a president deserved impeachment it was Democrat Andrew Johnson, yet he was acquitted because several Republicans in the Senate were just not willing to actually use the power of impeachment; they feared it was a Pandora's Box. 3) Like you said, why dump Bush, when Cheney is in step with the administration's policies. Not gonna happen, IMO. The 'duly' elected IS still being debated. Just part of American politics going back to the 1800 election. It's not a perfect system.

"The group-think feed-back around here is just so much auto-stimulation."


-But you like to watch, don't you Mr. G.

Yes. There is a certain perverse pleasure to be gleaned from watching lemmings self-destruct in the daylight.

You people are living in a dream world. Impeach Bush? Who would do that? The U.S. House of Representatives has that job and they support him. So also, does the U.S. Senate but by a lesser margin.

You anti-war types have to understand that you are the MINORITY.

Of course, the people are fickle and if Al Queda destroys a major American city, they might no longer support Bush. But for right now the peace movement is pissing in the wind.

"Of course, the people are fickle and if Al Queda destroys a major American city they might no longer support Bush"

The Bush administration has already shown how they would brazenly, callously, and successfully exploit such a tragedy. I'm afraid the Busheviks and al-Qaeda are firmly on the pro-war side of the fence- Two leading members of the Axis of Terror.

Fortunately, postoak, al-Qaeda is not the nemesis you have been programmed to believe. However, with every unmandated act of U.S. aggression, sentiments like those motivating al-Qaeda expand exponentially: With or without Qaeda.

hypewader, I'm not sure what makes you such an expert on Al Queda.

The raw fact we must start with is the destruction of the WTC, the Pentagon, the USS Cole, and the deaths of 3000 people. Perhaps you would care to explain how you read from that that Al Queda wouldn't destroy an American City.

"Perhaps you would care to explain how you read from that that Al Queda wouldn't destroy an American City."
Read from what? This?

"The raw fact we must start with is the destruction of the WTC, the Pentagon, the USS Cole, and the deaths of 3000 people. I see no reason to start with that raw fact. I am far more afraid of a fatal traffic accident than Al-Qaeda, and I am convinced my relative fears are better prioritized than your penchant for an archenemy scapegoat. Al-Qaeda's mass-murder did not spring spontaneously from the Will of Satan, nor have George Bush's policies been inspired of God. Anyway-

We must start a bit farther back than that to come close to any understanding. Read any bio, and you will learn that like Saddam, the CIA and Friends had a large part in making him (Osama, may he not RIP) who he was.

http://www.osama-bin-laden.tmfweb.nl/biography.htm if you're sincerely interested.

I know first-hand the resentment the United States has fostered in the Middle East, that has brought a long overdue (and indefensibly executed) response.

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/04/4731.php
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/09/1044725673670.html
We can't change the Arab World's opinion of the US through the approach the Bush Administration has been railroading us into. On the contrary, we are very likely to lose control of the situation.

Returning to your question, al-Qaeda is unlikely to destroy an American city because they lack the technology. Had we been "at war" (another agenda is now primary) at the same scale as began our almost no-holds-barred retaliative and pre-emptive attacks, and had the opponent been a nuclear power, we would perhaps face the spectre you raise. However, in the present context, your alarmism is suspect.

You see a momentous turning point in 9-11. I see a tired old cycle, that the US can choose to de-escalate or escalate at will. The simple fact you have not confronted is that the United States is in process of being evicted as the power-broker in the Middle East. That is the intent, and the inevitable result, of this timeworn (but new to you) phenomena of "Islamic/Arab Terrorism".

hypewaders -- you are making all kinds of assumptions about what I believe, trying to pigeon-hole me, but I think I'm a more original thinker than that.

It doesn't take much technology to destroy a city -- 20,000 pounds of fertilizer and 5 pounds of enriched uranium should do it.

OK you're right: I was thinking of something the size of Atlanta, not Fargo. We can worry about such crimes from white separatists as much: that's less mess than we left at Khafji.