Australia is only very seldomly mentioned in the media here. From what I've heard, it is one of the extremist pro-war countries though. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's some food of thought (adopted from elsewhere; not my own idea, I'm ashamed to admit):

Let's say we believe the peace protest organizers that the number of protesters was around 1.5 million in the US.

* The same weekend, 1.5 million people in the US saw the movie Kangoroo Jack.

* The same weekend, 6 million people in the US saw Daredevil.

* The same weekend, 60 million people in the US went to church.

Following the same logic that the protest organizers want to apply (if the US is a democratic country, they should back out of the war, because so many people demand it), the US should elect Ben Affleck to be the President, and should change from democracy to a fundamentalist Christian country.

Actually, there is a major flaw in that argument: going to the movies or going to church is something people are doing regularly, it is part of their normal lives. That means it isn't an effort to them. I don't have any numbers, but I bet more than 90% of the people who are protesting against this war have never been to such a protest before, i.e. this is not a part of their normal lives and it does require an effort. Thus, the numbers are not comparable. For example the protest in Berlin a few days ago was the second biggest in the history of our country (the biggest being in 1982, against the stationing of atomic missiles in Germany). The protest in London was the biggest in the history of the UK ever. These are the numbers to compare to!

(not to say Ben Affleck wouldn't be elected as President in the USA - that wouldn't be a new idea over there )

I addition, imagine Daredevil was only shown in one cinema in the US. Even if the cinema had an unlimited capacity of visitors, only several thousand people would have watched it. The demonstrations mostly took place in central cities, so you could compare both situations.

For example, I went to Berlin starting at 3 AM, arriving there at about 10 AM. Then the same way back in the evening. As I did not get any sleep the night before, my physical condition was terrible. Therefore, I have full understanding for the people who wanted to go there, but were not able to (no money, no time, illness...). For me, it's a miracle that so many people made it to the demonstrations in spite of all the obstacles.

sterge: As for Australian gouvernment, I only know they're completely following the US, just as the UK. I don't have any information about New Zealand, though.

Good argument! Even though, I may add, that the Berlin protests were still nothing compared to the Love Parade .

Anyway, it just stikes me as odd when people expect Bush to change his policy, based on around 0.5% of population. While the absolute numbers of the protesters seem to be large, their relative numbers are still small enough to dismiss them as a minor annoyance.

That thought came to my mind, too. I came to the conclusion that it was the bad weather.

But anyway, you will always find a larger number of people who will go somewhere for pleasure than for political issues.

You know how it is with people - the vast majority always remains passive, both in a negative and positive way. Therefore, I do think changing policies on the basis of protests of such a size wouldn't be all that wrong, because in what other situation should a government 'listen' if not in the case of some of the biggest political 'gatherings' (as opposed to 'fun' ) ever? It's not a very democratic attitude to simply dismiss them, because it is as if Bush / his government thinks he / they is / are elected to be dictator for 5 years and during this time, he / they doesn't / don't have to listen to anything. I'm not saying governments should always change their policies according to what 'the people' think, but dismissing protests in the way it is done at the moment is simply silly.

When I heard from the demonstration on radio, I would have gladly taken part, but I did not know that it takes place. How did you hear about it, Tapuak?

[edit: fixed the quotation code]

Edited by Mr Creosote at 16:51 on February, 20th 2003

Don't ask me where I heard about it first... Probably a banner hanging at university? As I'm aware such events are consequently being ignored by lots of the media, checking independent websites keeps me informed about what is really going on. Here are two good German sites for not missing demonstrations next time:

http://de.indymedia.org
http://www.nadir.org

You are correct, only cause John Howard wishes he was American, but our support is really just token gesture of a couple hundred SAS troops (some of the best elites in the world mind you) and some outdated planes. Go Australia

The silliness is gaining new heights: 'Americans' are beginning to 'purify' 'their' 'language' from unwanted elements: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2842493.stm

The same thing happened in Germany during the first world war by the way. French words like "Kotellette" were shut out because they 'belonged to the enemy'. Really nice where these people get their ideas from...

I can see where they might think propaganda like that may be neccesary during war, but were not at war with the French. I don't even know where all this Anti-French sentiment came from. I mean, Germany has the same view too, but we don't seem to mind them... There has been a cartoon running jokes about the French for the last couple weeks in the newspaper 'Millard Filmore'. Stuff like 'This is what happens when you try to tell a joke to the French. Guy #1: "Why did the chicken cross the road?". Crowd of French people: "I give up!!" (With hands raised in the air)'
People don't get it, they all say like "French were so scared in WWII they didn't fight, those assholes". What those people fail to realize is that 90% of French males between the ages of 18 and 26 were casulties in WWI. I dunno about you, but I wouldn't want to fight a war soon after that, either.

This shows impressively that mankind has not developed for several thousand years. One has to justify why he does not want to murder another human. The ones who do not want to are "wimps", those who murder are "brave". That has been the attitude of patriarchal societies for ages, and so it is today. Again and again, people are told they have to murder for abstract structures like countries or perverted values, no matter if it's "racial superiority", "wealth" or "freedom". The basics have always been the same, just the occasion and the "reasons" differ. The "brave" people who murder have always been the majority, and most likely that condition won't change very soon because no one wasnts to be a "wimp" who is able to think rationally.

Well, to clarify what I mean: The people who now "clean" their language from "hostile" vocabulary are the same as a Stone Age guy who propageted that the people in the neighbor cave are enemies and killed them.



So that means you want to "fight" because you personally did not see a bomb tearing up a human body? Concretely, you seem to say continuing the endless war is right, just the French and the Germans are not yet ready again to resume killing because they had the experience not so long ago. The saddest thing is that you are right in my opinion. Most people did never see a war, and apparently they're a not able to realize what it really means before their bodies get ripped by a so called "intelligent bomb"...

Edited by Tapuak at 21:22 on March, 13th 2003

Well that, and I was just refering to how the Nazis walked right over the French in WWII... Many people like to think that's because the French are wussies, and continually use this stereotype against them, over here in the US.
But you're still right, it is very sad that conflict would happen that quickly afterwards and on that scale.

I don't see how time or 'scale' influences the pure cruelity of killing. A murderer is a murderer, no matter if he 'only' kills every few years or constantly runs amok. If a country wages war, it doesn't matter how often they do it - at least not for the people who are killed this time. Can't people rationalize what happens in a war even if they haven't seen one themselves? I think I can in spite of never having been involved in a war (just like all the other regulars here...).

Edited by Mr Creosote at 22:09 on March, 13th 2003

I can't. Just take one of the most extreme examples, the atom bombing of a city. If I try to imagine, I fail. I think human perception is not able to apprehend the situation, even from a short distance. Even the people who sit in a plane and throw the bomb are not able to, even though they're just few kilometers away. You probably understand what I mean if you consider that they wouldn't murder the same amount of people with a knife, for example, even if they had the possibility to do so. Their perception from the plane is so much different from a direct confrontation with the people that they're, from this position, able to throw a bomb and kill thousands of humans.

Edit: Of course I do my best to realize what is happening in a war. Altohugh I'm very well aware of the cruelty, I'm not completely able to perceive the entire situation.

Edited by Tapuak at 22:32 on March, 13th 2003

And your conclusion is that it's quite alright to kill people by 'pushing a button', but not 'directly' with a knife? I know that's not what you think. Do you think it's more 'understandable'? I don't think so. Even though you are right none of us can imagine what the full horror would be like first hand, everybody knows how it is when people die, when they're torn into pieces, when they're burning alive or even when they're 'only' shot in the head and fall over dead instantly. Everybody throwing a bomb or even only supports throwing bombs knows this is what is going to happen as a direct effect. So the only conclusion left is that these people don't care at all, that they think the people who will die deserve it. There is no other possibility.

It's neither alright nor it's more understandable. I'm just searching for an explanation for the following question: Why have humans committed mass murder for thousands of years although most of them know some kind of ethics? ("committing" includes the people who support the killing). I'm sure there is a coherence with their perception.

Take the present cases: Wars that are being discussed in the Western public take place in countries the people know nothing about; they usually don't know any people there either. In addition, there's the distance I was talking about in my previous post. Now the western people are asked whether they support such a war. Yes, they certainly know that somebody will be killed, i.e. they know what is going to happen. However, the anonymity of the victim apparently makes it easier to support murder; the anonymous mass living in the country where the war takes place are not perceived as individuals, and the death of an individual is evaluated as more cruel than the death of an anonymous mass. This is of course completely irrational, but a fact.

Edited by Tapuak at 23:15 on March, 13th 2003

Exactly. That's why soldiers give their enemies nick names in time of war. "Huns" and "Jerries" in WWI and "Gooks" in Vietnam are some examples. These terms are used to make the enemy sub-human, and as a collective, massive group as if one "evil" were fighting you. Of course these don't hold up for long after one is out of combat, and one realizes the truth that they have done. Most recently, that's why a bunch of people came out really screwed up in the head from Vietnam.

'Mass anonymity' maybe explains an uncaring attitude towards killing, but it doesn't explain why people start wars ( "I feel like killing a few thousand people because I don't know them" ) or wage them ( "I don't know whom this river of blood running at my feet belongs to, so I'll enlarge it" ).

Even more came back feeling betrayed by the evil media and their evil campaign against their heroic deeds and by the primitive civilians who have no idea how great they've fought for freedom. What about these people? Their behaviour and thinking can't be explained by simple anonymity. There has to be something deeper than not caring - these people do care, but in a negative and destructive way!