| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Peace protesters float an anti-war message | |
|
||
| Time: 04:22 EST/09:22 GMT | News Source: Seattle PI | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
It was supposed to be the world's largest floating peace demonstration and a gesture aimed at getting Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates to publicly float his own position on the prospect of a U.S.-led war against Iraq. A dozen kayaks, three sailboats and a canoe pasted with signs such as "No Iraq War" and "Launch Software, Not Warfare" paddled or sailed from Madison Park south of the Evergreen Point Bridge over to the Gates family home in Medina on the eastern shore of Lake Washington yesterday afternoon. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 323 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:11:39 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (156.80.64.132) at 2/10/2003 9:03:12 AM |
|
With BG trying to move so much software development to India, I think they chose the wrong 'patriot' to protest to.
TL |
| #2 By 14091 (63.236.113.66) at 2/10/2003 2:22:08 PM |
| This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use. |
| #3 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 2/10/2003 3:46:57 PM |
|
I nullified the offensive remarks, but the posts contained valid or semi-valid points, so I'll post the non-offensive parts:
#1 Drestin -------------- Oh my god - how lame!! I'll bet these guys wore penguin underware and (try to) use linux too. #1) Paddlers for Peace : Low Turnout - who'd thunk? hahahaa #2) Bill Gates? What the farq does he have to do with Iraq/war/politics? #3) Those hippies shoulda used the water for a bath instead of trying to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. How about if some of my Marine & Ranger buddies and I visit these guys living in their mothers basements and place our gas-engine generator power neon "War Now!" signs on their lawns parked in our SUVs dropping styroform cups and plastic wrappers in their recycle bins (paper in the plastic bin and visa versa)... -------------- #3 XMLSOAP -------------- How are you a 'hippie fag' if you're protesting war that doesn't make any sense. The US government STILL has not provided solid evidence that war is necessary. And, according to UN estimates, going to war with Iraq will end up killing and injuring 500,000 civilians. -------------- #8 KevMo -------------- Nice. The moderators will moderate you if you swear, but not if you use the word.... -------------- Kev, we can't monitor every thread 24/7. If you see something offensive, please report it. Otherwise, don't complain when it isn't caught right away. If you feel you can do a better job, please email Bob Stein and request moderator access. This post was edited by daz on Monday, February 10, 2003 at 15:49. |
| #4 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 2/10/2003 5:05:19 PM |
|
The fact that Iraq has not disarmed is cause for war!
Iraq was told to disarm via UN resolutions after the Gulf War, and they have not. They continue to be unforthcoming, devious, and outright lie. They continue to harbor weapons of mass destruction... if the UN does nothing, then the UN may as well not exist. |
| #5 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 2/10/2003 5:16:22 PM |
|
#5 - "The UN lied."
That's quite a statement. Giving a possible reason why they might lie is not the same as providing evidence that they did lie. Do you have some evidence that they lied? If not, it would seem to me that your thrist for war (or, rather, your dogmatic support of all things Republican) is clouding your judgement, and making you blind to the possibilty that your support for a war against Iraq could end up being support for an action that takes many innocent lives. If I were you, I would be damned sure about who is doing the lying. |
| #6 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 2/10/2003 6:27:35 PM |
|
"going to war with Iraq will end up killing and injuring 500,000 civilians"
And when that happens, those deaths will be the fault of Sadaam's regime. Truly sad. But in the end, I have to say "better them than me", but I take no glory in killing such an unfortunate people. But I do think that is what it reduces down to... somebody's gonna die... "better them than me". |
| #7 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 2/10/2003 6:30:29 PM |
|
daz, you missed an instance of the f word.
#3 XMLSOAP -------------- How are you a 'hippie f..' |
| #8 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 2/10/2003 6:40:49 PM |
|
#14 - First of all, I never said I need reasons why the UN would lie. I said that reasons why the UN would like is not evidence that the UN lied.
"Let's see: Libya is heading up the Human Rights Committee." http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020824/2002082412.html http://home.earthlink.net/~dribrahim/kikhiae.htm http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/hrcommittee/LIBYA.htm "Iraq is supposedly up to chair the Arms Disarmament Committee. LOL" I can't find any info on this... got a link? I find it highly unlikely. "There is no thirst for war in the US, just a thirst to be rid of enemies of the free world." You know that's bullsh*t as well as I do. We've installed far more dictators than we have democracies... in fact, we installed Saddam. Get a grip man. "Iraq has had 10+ LONG arduous years to disarm, and has given no proof that they have." Fine, but you don't think it's a bit strange that Bush would pick the exact moment he had a lull in his war on terrorism to take up arms with Iraq? If this is really about preventing terrorism, then we should be concentrating on North Korea, which has quite a bit of motivation to sell nuclear weapons (so that it can feed itself) to terrorists. Iraq is a threat, but it comes in a distant 3rd... 1 being Osama and his gang, and 2 being North Korea. "How many more will satisfy socialists?" Grow up man. If you want to argue, fine... but name calling is juvenile. And, ironically, I'm more libertarian than I am democrat. At any rate, economic policy has little to do with the current argument. You lash out because you've been programmed to do so by the conservatives whom feed you your dogma. "Look, you can't have a smoking gun until the gun fires. Do you REALLY want to wait that long?" Argument from adverse consequences is a logical fallacy. If you really want to talk about the those that are most likely to hurt us, I've already given you two targets of far more importance than Iraq. |
| #9 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 2/10/2003 7:00:36 PM |
|
Iraq and the Arms Disarmament Committee
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/TGAM/20030122/UCOMMM/International/international/internationalAfricaHeadline_temp/4/4/7/ |
| #10 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 2/10/2003 7:00:41 PM |
|
Double Post... Sorry This post was edited by Mr.Humpty on Monday, February 10, 2003 at 19:01. |
| #11 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/10/2003 9:12:06 PM |
|
Ah, ok... well, the sub-headline of that article explains it:
"Chairman of largely ineffective group changes monthly, by alphabetical order" But I suppose Bush will now move to change the alphabet so that we can skip Iraq. :-) |
| #12 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/11/2003 1:20:00 AM |
|
#22 - parker - nice job at trying to evade my question.
Regardless of whether or not the original statement is true, you claim that the UN lied. Obviously that is not the case, as you have pointed out. Yet you still made the claim they lied. How do you now defend this? |
| #13 By 13998 (212.153.190.3) at 2/11/2003 5:32:06 AM |
|
Before I start first I would like to make clear that in no ways I would support Saddam Hussein, however, I am afraid no Americans have any right to comment on what is going to happen or what the best interest from the Middle East is. It is easier to promote the war while your houses are secure and thousands of miles away from where the war will take place. And there are some facts and questions to answer that you cannot ignore:
1. Did it take 13 years for the US to realize that Saddam was a threat? Why wasn't he removed from power in 1990? Was having Saddam in power in Iraq back then the best interest for the US, but has this changed in time? 2. 'What' is the US, and who are they to decide about the best interest for the Middle East? 3. They failed prove every single claims they put against Iraq. 4. Every military action (including the military coups which are aimed to remove democracy from power) is done for the 'interest of the public'. At least this has always been the claim of the invaders/attackers. 5. Recently the US is not very good at making friends. "You are with us, or against us". This sounds like the politics of a fascist country rather than a democratic one. Anti-American movements spread very quickly all around Europe. It would be the irony of history if 50 years from now, countries start declaring the US as a terrorist country. |
| #14 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/11/2003 9:15:56 AM |
|
#24 - Parker, answer the question.
You said: "The UN lied. " You then went on to suggest that they lied because of some monetary gain they get from the Oil for Food program. Obviously, YOU were lying about both of these points because you affirmed both of them to be true, but had absolutely no evidence of either. I'm asking you to explain yourself, and you keep avoiding the challenge because you know you have no way of explaining it. You set out to dilerately mislead people on this forum, and you've been caught. You should be ashamed. |
| #15 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 2/11/2003 1:17:23 PM |
|
#27 - "If we didn't realize he was a threat 13 years ago there would not have been a Gulf War."
He was a threat to our oil in 1990, and he is a threat to our politicans (or, rather, an opportunity) now. "We have no interest in deciding what's in the best interest of other countries. We have a vested interest in protecting ourselves and our friends from biological, chemical, or nuclear attack." Absolutely. Which is why we should concentrate not on the easiest to exterminate threats (Saddam), but instead on the most dangerious ones (Osama and North Korea.) "As I said before, some people will never believe that Saddam is a threat until he uses his weapons and perhaps kills thousands of people." Funny... when "liberals" scream about global warming, they are ridiculed for not enough evidence (which is, of course, completely false), yet when Bush wants to attack a country he can simply say "he could do bad things maybe", then we should send many young Americans over to the country to kill and be killed. Talk about hipocracy. "That it is a moral action to kill millions, to use chemical weapons to commit genocide if you believe it is moral?" What about dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan? We killed tens of thousands of Japanese. Was that immoral? Clearly, killing is moral or immoral not based on some absolute standard, but based on the situation at hand. Is it relative? No. Is it circumstantial? Yes. Having said that, is Saddam moral? Hell no. But since when do we have a problem with brutality around the world? Hell, we condone it happily if it gets us cheaper goods. "What is sad is most of Europe is equally threatened by the threats Iraq and terrorism pose to the free world." Again, if it's terrorism we're worried about, Iraq is a distant 3rd on the list of concerns. This proposed war has little to do with terroism, and a lot to do with politics. Any easy target like Iraq will make people in the U.S. think Bush is really doing something about terrorism, which he can then use to promote the rest of his agenda. "Maybe it will take a chemical attack or a biological attack or heaven forbid a nuclear attack in the center of one of Europe's major cities for them to wake up." Ya, maybe... but if that happens, it will almost certainly be from a terrorist who got their weapons from North Korea, not from Iraq. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 323 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:11:39 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
