[ My desire to keep politics out my journal here has, on this occasion, been overtaken by my desire to advertise this as widely as possible ]
If you don't know that there's an Anti-War Demo on Saturday then you must be living on another planet.
From what I'm seeing the number of people who are planning to go on this demo is huge. When I was a student, I was surrounded by people who thought like me and we'd all go off on demos together. Since then I seem to know less and less people who would see spending an afternoon marching through London as a useful way to spend their time. I've become used to people looking at me slightly strangely when I say I'm going on a demo.
But this this time it's different. Everyone that I talk to is planning to go along. Even people who have never been on a demo in their life are considering going along. This march isn't just going to be people selling Socialist Worker or career lefties. It will be people from all sections of British society. I really think that the government is going to be taken aback by the breadth of support that the anti-war movement has. Blair is wrong to support Bush. Only a very small number of people can't see this.
I strongly suspect that this could be the largest demo that London has ever seen.
Please come along and help prove me right.
The US has a different view of the UK position on the upcoming second gulf war. For the past few months now, the US press has portrayed the UK as generally supportive of the US POV. Most of this news coverage has taken the form of Tony Blair speaking on behalf of Parliment, and Parliment speaking on behalf of the British people.I really think that the government is going to be taken aback by the breadth of support that the anti-war movement has. Blair is wrong to support Bush. Only a very small number of people can't see this.
Even today, the US press generally paints the UK as still somewhat supportive of the US plan of action.
On what grounds are the British people not supporting war in the gulf?
Links
davorg on 2003-02-10T16:16:43
You might find this page of links to Guardian stories gives you a good overview of the UK Anti-War movement.
Re:Anti-war protests
jj on 2003-02-10T20:30:37
On what grounds are the British people not supporting war in the gulf?I can assure you that the anti-war lobby is not representative of 'the British people' as a whole. I for one am fully behind whatever action Mr Bush and Mr Blair decide is necessary (and as a lifelong Tory voter, I never thought I'd hear myself say that I support a Labour PM
:-) I'm sure that the protest that Dave mentions will attract a large attendance, but so what? This will not in itself prove that there it not an equal or greater level of support for a possible war. We just don't have marches in support of government policy - it will always be easier to stir up people with a strong negative opinion than to engage the silent majority.
As for The Guardian, non-UK readers should be aware that this newspaper sits on one extreme with it's own views and agenda. It does not present a balanced or representative viewpoint that represents the UK as a whole. Again, just my opinion, but I would consider the views of The Guardian to epitomise all that is wrong with our country.
Dave - I don't want to start an argument about this, I respect your views and I hope that you will respect mine. Of course, I've fuelled the debate by adding my point of view, but I really don't think that use Perl; is an appropriate forum for such matters. The Perl community has a very good reputation for being welcoming and inclusive, but there's nothing more certain to cause divisions than arguments about politics (except maybe religion). Please consider making political posts somewhere more suitable.
Re:Anti-war protests
jdavidb on 2003-02-10T20:45:17
I enjoy the political posts because it helps me have perspective. Perl people are just smart in general! Even the ones who have wacked out politics usually have points of view that are worth my time to consider.
I particularly enjoyed seeing your post, because I hear very little support for the war coming from Europe. Knowing there are folks who feel as you do is quite revealing, and I would have never seen that if this journal entry were not here to draw it out of you.
Any attempts to deduce my standing on the war issue from this post will probably be wrong.
:) Re:Anti-war protests
davorg on 2003-02-10T23:02:52
- There have always been political posts here on use.perl. Personally I've kept them to a minimum since starting my other blog but I don't think you'll ever stop them completely. We've even discussed religion here at times. The vast majority of these discussions have been extremely civilised. I don't think I've ever been disrespectful of anyone's politics (tho' I will confess to occasionally being less than completely respectful about some people's religion)
- Of course The Guardian is biased. However I don't believe that it's any more biased than any other national British newspaper (just in a different direction to most of them). I posted that link because the Guardian web site is the one I am most familiar with, but I'm sure that other papers have carried similar stories
- I don't claim to speak for the British public as a whole. All I can say is that I have heard much more talk about this demonstration than I have ever heard about any previous anti-war demonstration. And it's coming from a far wider range of people too.
- If we get 500,000 people along to the demo, then I realise that this will only represent about 1% of the adult population of the country. But that will still be a significant number. That would be much bigger than any demo London has seen for a long time.
Re:Anti-war protests
pudge on 2003-02-12T04:36:51
FWIW, I am the owner of use.perl, and I've made probably as many political posts as anyone. So whatever.:-)
I agree that the posts should stop -- or certain guilty parties should stop -- when the discussions lack civility. I, too, have occasionally been guilty of this.
And I didn't know there was an antiwar protest this weekend. Maybe it is more a UK thing? I dunno. Regardless, when you wrote "demo," I thought it was gonna be some Flash animation or something... :)
Most of this news coverage has taken the form of Tony Blair speaking on behalf of Parliment, and Parliment speaking on behalf of the British people.
Tony Blair is deliberately misrepresenting British public opinion. The opinion polls are mostly showing the majority of the British population don't support the war (at least, not without another UN resolution).
On what grounds are the British people not supporting war in the gulf?
It's not just in the UK. Much of Europe seems to have the same doubts. There are a number of different reasons. The major one seems to be that the US seems to be trying to circumvent proper UN procedures to start the war as soon as possible. Others I've heard include:
Other people may offer their favourites to the list.
Re:Antiwar Protest
rafael on 2003-02-10T16:32:39
May I add my favourite reason ?
- the continuous arrogance of US' foreign policy is going to fabricate more terrorists and Al Quaeda supporters.
Re:Antiwar Protest
jordan on 2003-02-12T04:13:24
- the continuous arrogance of US' foreign policy is going to fabricate more terrorists and Al Quaeda supporters.
I'm not sure what will create more terrorists, but I know what will create less.
I believe that Al Qaeda is less secure today than before we went into Afghanistan. I like to think that this means less terrorism.
I feel less secure with Al Qaeda access to a huge stockpile of VX, Anthrax and possibly smallpox from Iraq.
I do believe that more Al Qaeda supporters are being created daily with Osama Bin Laden blaming the US for starving Iraqi children, while money that could feed those same children is spent on mobile biolabs.
Maybe if an open democratic society could be established in Iraq and Afghanistan (and maybe Iran with their people seeing the advantages of open societies on their borders), there would be less Al Qaeda supporters in this world.
On the other hand, we could just curl up in our borders and hope that 'Islamic Street' sees that we are no threat to them and stop their terrorism... Somehow, I don't believe this.
Re:Antiwar Protest
rafael on 2003-02-12T08:07:54
Saddam Hussein is an atheist (or an autotheist, "someone who thinks he is God"). He's the leader of a socialist party (the Ba'as party). He's also a megalomaniac. I don't imagine him funding islamic terrorists, unless he has complete control over them (obviously not the case with Al Quaeda). Al Qaeda zealots are against democracy, against separation of churches and state, and as well against Saddam Hussein who guarantees religious freedom in Iraq as long as he's worshipped first. Moreover there is currently no evidence that Iraq actually owns smallpox and other biological weapons.I feel less secure with Al Qaeda access to a huge stockpile of VX, Anthrax and possibly smallpox from Iraq.I'd say it again : the main problem is the arrogance of the US' foreign policy. The message of Bush is clear : no negotation, we have evidences, we want a war now, we're right, God bless America. Argh. This is not a good thing for American diplomacy. With this attitude, the USA is loosing its credibility and its power. It's now easy for the current arab allies of the USA to depict themselves as the next target, in a few decades. They'll be less likely helping the USA then. Other countries, looking at the way USA manages this crisis, see that they completely fail to act on a diplomatic plan, and that's is nearly impossible to discuss with them, as Bush repeats that those that don't want war in Iraq are the USA's enemies.
Gee, I don't even see why I complain about USA. Let them mess up their own diplomacy and alliances, that's a good thing for Europe by contrast.
Re:Antiwar Protest
jordan on 2003-02-12T17:45:15
- Saddam Hussein is an atheist...
That's funny, I could swear that I see, almost daily, videotape of Saddam Hussein on his prayer rug, bowing down in prayer in the manner of Moslems.
I can't read Hussein's mind. I don't know if he's an atheist or not. I do note that Islam does not require belief, only obedience, which is how they went about "converting" so many to their religion. As long as Hussein is bowing down, he's Muslim.
It is quite clear to me that Hussein wishes to curry favor with Moslem fandamentalists. It's also reasonable to assume that Al Qaeda would not use terror weapons he provides against Iraq, especially if Iraq provided measured doses. Bin Ladin just said yesterday that it's OK to work even with the hated Communists to destroy America. I doubt that Hussein would hesitate to work with Muslim fundamentalists to destroy America. America is the one thing standing between Hussein and his desire to dominate the region and it's Oil.
Your belief that he wouldn't supply Al Qaeda with weapons is not reassuring to me.
- Moreover there is currently no evidence that Iraq actually owns smallpox and other biological weapons.
There's a great deal of evidence that Iraq has tons of Anthrax, which is a biological weapon. It was identified by the last inspection regime and it's currently unaccounted for.
Supposedly there's smallpox missing from Russian labs. I would guess there's some reason the US is on a crash program to develop and deploy smallpox vacinne. The prudent thing to assume is that Iraq or the terrorists have this weapon. Millions will die if it's deployed, even with aggressive vacinnation.
- The message of Bush is clear : no negotation, we have evidences, we want a war now, we're right, God bless America.
This is such a mischaracterization of the US position that I don't know where to start. The current UNMOVIC inspectors have stated, quite clearly, that Iraq is in material breach of the Resolution 1441. We've worked it through diplomacy and sanctions for a decade with nothing to show for it. Clinton said back in 1998 that this situation was untenable and that a military solution may be necessary. We've given it 5 more years. I don't see the US, or Bush, rushing into anything.
- Other countries, looking at the way USA manages this crisis, see that they completely fail to act on a diplomatic plan, and that's is nearly impossible to discuss with them, as Bush repeats that those that don't want war in Iraq are the USA's enemies.
I don't get it. We work hard to get Resolution 1441, getting unanimous Security Council sign-on for the resolution, we continue to work to get more UN resolutions and you claim "that's is nearly impossible to discuss with them". We've worked for YEARS on diplomatic solutions and there's nothing to show for it except an Iraq that still is playing games with UN inspectors. This according to the inspector's themselves.
Sorry, the US just can't allow all the hand-wringing and avoid-war-at-all-costs types to cost us another catastrophe in the US. In the era of Nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, we may have to act preemptively.
A smoking gun is only found after it's been fired. We cannot wait for that gun to fire.
- Let them mess up their own diplomacy and alliances, that's a good thing for Europe by contrast.
That explains a lot, actually. Is this why Europe is so opposed to the US? To look good by contrast?
Well, I can tell you that from here, many in Europe look quite bad. The Belgium/France/Germany intransigence to deploy NATO resources in the defense of Turkey, which they are sworn to do by Treaty, has gained them the criticism of all the other NATO signatories, including Canada, Norway, Italy and Spain. Not exactly war-mongering countries.
Saddam and the terrorist myth
TeeJay on 2003-02-12T22:29:15
The Terrorist organisations have called saddam an atheist and an infidel. In the tape which supposedly links iraq and al qaida bin laden refers to the iraq rulers as solialist infidels.Although iraq is on the whole a muslim nation, with a muslim majority it has a wide range of races and religions - this is because it was created artificially, like isreal, but european empire builders as they carved up the lands the middle east.
Calling Saddam a muslim is like calling hitler or david koresh a christian. More importantly jews and christians in muslim countries are treated a lot better than in christian, jewish and hindu countries.
Islamic law protects those of all religions. To be a muslim you have believe and be obient but all beliefs are respected by islam as long as you don't try and slaughter muslims ( part of the reason there is so much misunderstanding of islam and its apparent militarism is that it has spent most of its history being attacked by Judaism and christianity as well as more recently hindu extremists and jewish extremists ).
Bin laden said nothing about working with Saddam - he said all muslims should stand up for the people of iraq. At no point does he support or encourage support for saddam. Was the american broadcast of the tape edited by the same people who 'edited' the dodgy dossier or something. He told iraqi's how to protect themselves against US invasion. He told muslims to stand up for iraq and defend its people - not its leader!
There is *no* evidence that Iraq has smallpox or anthrax - it has mustard gas, a ww1 weapon probably provided by the US and other NATO countries - its longest range rockets struggle to reach into isreal, and isreal would be its only target - attacking kuwait would only bring reprisals from arab nations possibly leading to saddams downfall. If there was any evidence the UN would have come down like a ton of bricks - there is not so it hasn't.
Neither blix nor any inspectors have claimed he is breach - only US and UK ministers and generals. The US has made it clear it would take unilateral action. This is unacceptable.
Europe is, with good reason, waiting for any evidence of a material breach. Playing fast and loose with the rules (as opposed to breaking, and then jumping up and down on the rules like China, russia or isreal) is not a material breach.
It is impossible to discuss anything with the United States - it doesn't pay its dues, it walks out of talks on the environment, the middle east, GM crops, anything at all that might not go in the US favour is simply ignored.
The whole point of having the UN is that nations like the US don't create a situation like that in Iraq (you *do* remember who put saddam into power and gave him all those weapons) again.
Re:Saddam and the terrorist myth
jordan on 2003-02-13T02:45:00
- Calling Saddam a muslim is like calling hitler or david koresh a christian.
I don't know if he's a muslim or not. Clearly, he appears at Mosques and prays to curry favor with Muslims. He clearly wants support of Muslims and their interests collide.
- More importantly jews and christians in muslim countries are treated a lot better than in christian, jewish and hindu countries.
Oh yes, like the Christians that are gunned down in Pakistan.
- Bin laden said nothing about working with Saddam - he said all muslims should stand up for the people of iraq. At no point does he support or encourage support for saddam...
In the BBC translation of the Bin Laden tape appears:
- Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists. The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago.
I heard the term 'socialist' translated as 'communist' by another source. He is clearly saying that it is right to fight with socialists (communists) against the crusaders (Americans). He clearly does say that it's OK to work with Saddam in the tape, based on this BBC translation.
- The US has made it clear it would take unilateral action. This is unacceptable.
NATO and Europe too unilateral action in Kosovo without a UN resolution. I guess when it serves European purposes, it's OK, but when the US is expected to kow-tow to any veto holding power of the Security Council.
- Neither blix nor any inspectors have claimed he is breach...
Blix has all but said Iraq is in material breach. I refer you to this article which states:
I asked for this session today for two purposes: First, to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. As Dr. Blix reported to this council on January 27, quote, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it," unquote.
And as Dr. ElBaradei reported, Iraq's declaration of December 7, quote, "did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998."
...
- There is *no* evidence that Iraq has smallpox or anthrax
...
This article states that a great deal of Anthrax, positively identified by the UNSCOM inspectors goes unaccounted for. Where is it?
I've heard that smallpox is missing from Russia. It could well be in the hands of Hussein, who was known to be seeking out such things in the past.
Re:Antiwar Protest
pudge on 2003-02-12T04:45:15
Right, because doing nothing has made for less terrorists and Al Qaeda supporters... doing nothing..
TeeJay on 2003-02-12T22:09:58
depends if you mean doing nothing about iraq or doing nothing about the middle east.Terrorists do not support saddam, saddam does not support terrorists - there is no link, at all. if the US and Isreali intelligence were any good they would have more useful information than :
- Saddam has a small penis
- Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (that we sold to him to use on muslim neighbours in iran but not isreal or other US allies) that have already been desteroyed by the UN.
- Saddams grip on power is held through a military junta disguised a political party, based on student essays of 12 years ago - making it different from say Pakistan which has nuclear weapons, supports terrorist organisations, is actually waging war in kashmir and is a military junta.
There are many things to do in the middle east - for example bringing UN peace keepers to stop isreal commiting further genocide and war crimes.
Providing real aid to syria and palestine without tying it to unfeasable political plans.
If we really wanted the UN to be taken seriously then the issues of Cyprus and Palestine should be addressed long before iraq. That would also bring peace to the middle east quicker than bombing iraq.
The supposedly liberal northern alliance in afghanisation has turned out to be almost as extremist as the taliban but less organised.The only difference between the new afghan regime and the old is the tribe in control and the flags the same warlords and gangsters are flying while they re-invest in drugs and the mad mullahs lay down the same laws as under the taliban
oh and we still don't have any actual evidence of Iraq commiting a serious breach of UN resolutions - unlike isreal which makes sure it breaks a UN resolution every day.
The dossier that Colin Powell went on about was a mixture of cribbing from Janes Defence and rewriting a 12 year old californian graduate student essay.
The reason 80% of the UK (looking at the polls), don't want war is because it will do nothing for the people of iraq (even the kurds don't want a war now that they have autonomy), for world peace or the middle east - we know that war will move the world away from peace rather than closer. The people of iraq certainly don't want a war.
The biggest concern, again based on recent polls, is that war will destabilise the middle east and give isreal a chance to finish off palestine and occupy its neighbours while the UN is distracted and in doing so start a major war through the whole of the middle east - pulling in Pakistan and India and possibly turkey and even the problematic areas in the baltics and the russian dissedent republics.
Re:doing nothing..
pudge on 2003-02-12T22:53:04
we still don't have any actual evidence of Iraq commiting a serious breach of UN resolutions
This is plainly false. Not even the leaders of France or Germany could say this with a straight face. After Powell's presentation, France did not say Iraq was not in breach; it accepted that Iraq was in breach, and said we should give them more time.
You're simply making things up out of thin air. No serious person familiar with the facts believes that Iraq is not in serious breach. Both El Baradei and Blix have been very clear that Iraq has not been fully cooperating, that they have in fact been stonewalling UNSCOM and the IAEA. This is a serious breach, as noted in many resolutions, including the original 687 from March 1991 and the most recent 1441 from November 2002, which stated in no uncertain terms that Iraq must cooperate fully, without condition. No one contends Iraq has done this.
It is true that since Powell's presentation, Iraq has been more cooperative. And they still have further to go. But to say there is no evidence they have committed a serious breach is just utter nonsense.
unlike isreal which makes sure it breaks a UN resolution every day.
It amazes me that anyone thinks this is a valid comparison. Iraq lost a war with the UN and agreed to disarm rather than be destroyed. Israel never fought a war with the UN, let alone lost one, and never agreed to the resolutions in question. The situations are not comparable.
even the kurds don't want a war now that they have autonomy
Autonomy which only exists as long as US forces enforce the no-fly zone. You want to see real genocide? Let the US pull out of Northern Iraq.
Re:Antiwar Protest
jordan on 2003-02-12T01:44:46
- The major one seems to be that the US seems to be trying to circumvent proper UN procedures to start the war as soon as possible.
The US has worked under the auspices of the UN for more than a decade. The allies have worked assiduously to develop a concensus in the UN, with some success (Resolution 1441).
However, the UN is not World Government. It's ineffective in that role due to the ability of any Security Council member to veto. The UN did not approve of the bombing of Serbia over Kosovo because of the threat of Russian veto. But, intervention in Serbia was the right thing to do.
Similarly, the UN might not approve action against Iraq due to vetoes from France and Russia. France and Russia are two countries that have a large economic interest in Hussein's Iraq, having made many contracts, some legal - others grey, with Hussein's Government that might be worthless if that Government disappeared.
It may be the right thing to go in regardless of the interests of France and Russia.
- Too many Iraqis will die
This is a tragedy. It's also tragic that many people, especially young people, die every day in Hussein's Iraq due to starvation and disease, while humanitarian aid and proceeds from oil sales that are earmarked for humanitarian purposes are siphoned off to the Army and Nuclear/Biological/Chemical and Missile programs.
This situation feeds the hatred of the West and the US in the 'Islamic Street'. It cannot be allowed to continue. I know of no way to avoid it but regime change. I'm open to suggestions as to how that could be accomplished without war.
- It's clearly just about the oil in the region
I disagree that it's "just about the oil". Would it have been "just about the oil" had we finished the job 12 years ago? No.
Look, it's hard to imagine a situation in the Middle East that doesn't have something to do with the oil reserves, but to try and write it off as being "just about the oil" is overly simplistic.
- A war will destabilise the region
Doesn't seem to me that there's much support historically for that position. The first Gulf War didn't destablize the region.
In fact, one of the great problems of the region is that the resources are all tied up in the hands of a few and the countries lack open institutions. If we can help facilitate the change of Iraq to a more Open Democratic society, it might tend to serve as an example. It might help to move Iran away from the Mullah controlled prison it is today.
You may be right. It might destabilize the region. Of course, the status quo in the region is pretty miserable, so some destabilization might be a good thing.
- The US has no right to remove the leader of another sovereign nation
When does the US gain that right? When a dozen US cities are in flames, 1/2 the population is dead from smallpox? When?
It's clear that Hussein has given up none of his asperations to dominate the region and perhaps the World. Otherwise, what is he doing hoarding tons of Nerve Gas and other agents? He will not succeed in dominating the region as long as the US is a world power.
It's not lost on Hussein that the $500,000 investment by Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks reaped $700,000,000,000 in economic damage to the US. How much more could be done with Hussein's aid? Would the US be able to stop Hussein if they were tied up with a 100 9/11 sized attacks + smallpox?
There's clear evidence that Hussein has already started down this road with helping terrorists in Britain make Rison.
It's best to finish up the work begun some years ago. To make Hussein comply with International Law.
It's not pretty, I admit. War never is. This may well be part of an ongoing battle that will require us to choose sides.
When you are out there marching with the Imams - who want to establish Taliban-style regimes everywhere, anti-American Communists and pacifist who would have given in to Hitler, think about which side you may be choosing.
Re:Antiwar Protest
pudge on 2003-02-12T05:00:03
The point that the US has gone along with UN procedures needs to be emphasized. For the last six months, the US has not in any way stepped outside UN procedures, nor done anything to circumvent them. It simply is not happening.
Could it happen? Could the US go to war without the support of the UN, or against the apparent will of the UN? Yes. But there are no examples of the US doing this. To say the US is trying to circumvent UN procedure is fabrication.
Perhaps it is meant that the threat of acting without UN support is "trying to circumvent proper UN procedures," but it isn't. There's nothing in the UN procedures that say you can't say that.
One might say that actually acting without UN support is "trying to circumvent proper UN procedures," but it technically isn't, either, as there is nothing that says military actions must be approved by the UN. Heck, the UN has *already* given support for "serious consequences"; while that is not a blanket approval of military action, it is a lot closer to support of military action than it is a prohibition of the same.
Also, as to "as soon as possible": it's been 10 years we've been trying to get Iraqi cooperation/compliance, and it's been five years since the UN inspectors left because of the lack of it. Bill Clinton, as President, said we can't wait for Iraq, that we need to address the problem before it becomes unmanagable. This isn't new. This isn't something that just started happening six months ago. It's been going on for years now, and it's been the same old thing.
To put it another way: some people ask why Bush is rushing to war. I say, Iraq has been breaking its agreement with the UN for a decade; why are other nations stalling?
Re:Antiwar Protest
mary.poppins on 2003-02-14T11:11:01
The point that the US has gone along with UN procedures needs to be emphasized. For the last six months, the US has not in any way stepped outside UN procedures, nor done anything to circumvent them. It simply is not happening.
I'm not an expert on this stuff, but it was my impression that the ongoing UK gov/US gov bombing campaign/"no fly zone" was outside UN procedures.
To put it another way: some people ask why Bush is rushing to war. I say, Iraq has been breaking its agreement with the UN for a decade; why are other nations stalling?
I, for one, am highly skeptical that a dictator installed by the US gov after an invasion would treat people much better than the current one. If you look at CIA dictator-installing history (e.g. Latin America 1970-present, including the time when Bush Sr. was head of the CIA), there are some pretty unsavory characters there. These are the people that are responsible for the death of a substantial portion of the population of Guatemala in the 1980s. The Iran-Contra people are all back in the saddle now, and judging from their past work, I'm not rooting for them to conquer new territories. Have you noticed some great transition to democracy and love in Afghanistan?
Even if you decide that a US-gov-installed dictator would be nicer, there's a *human cost* associated with that installation.
PS If you haven't seen the movie "Brazil" recently, you should go and watch it.Re:Antiwar Protest
pudge on 2003-02-14T14:54:13
I'm not an expert on this stuff, but it was my impression that the ongoing UK gov/US gov bombing campaign/"no fly zone" was outside UN procedures.
I specifically said "for the last six months." Yes, the enforcement of the no-fly zone has continued in that time, but it has been going on for a decade, and I was thinking of new things, not long-term continuing things. Sorry for the confusion.
I, for one, am highly skeptical that a dictator installed by the US gov after an invasion would treat people much better than the current one.
That doesn't really address the point of the question, which was primarily rhetorical: that people are at the same time saying Bush is rushing, and asking why American waited so long, and I find the questions to be mostly incompatible; and that any time someone asks why Bush is rushing, it is reasonable to ask them why 12 years is not a sufficient amount of time.
That said, I can't imagine how a US-installed dictator could be worse than Hussein, but even addressing that question in this way assumes that the US will be installing a dictator. I don't see that happening. In fact, the reports I've seen are not that the US will be installing anyone, but that the Iraqi opposition is choosing him, with the blessing of the US (the difference between your parents choosing your betrothed, and providing blessing for whom you've selected).
smh.com.au has an interesting story, but the headline and lead are misleading: the quotes and facts provided don't actually support that the US has "chosen" anyone. If it works out as this article says, Ahmed Chalabi is already the head of the Iraqi National Congress; the US didn't put him into that position. The US didn't talk to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution or the Iranian Government to smooth things out, Chalabi himself did. He has been doing the work to get support for himself. Again, blessing != choosing.
Also according to this article, the opposition forces will hold a summit tomorrow, where -- my guess -- is they will choose the next Iraqi leader. Blix speaks in 5 minutes to the UN. A lot is happening...
Re:Antiwar Protest
pudge on 2003-02-14T14:55:43
Oh, and in addition, Chalabi doesn't look like a dictator (in description) to me, though, of course, appearances can be deceiving.Re:Antiwar Protest
mary.poppins on 2003-02-15T12:38:21
I think the US government, rather than starting more wars, should just leave well enough alone, and stop the counterproductive stuff. Once we get to that point, *then* we can talk about trying to encourage good things to happen. The US exports a tremendous amount of military machinery. Take Mexico or Columbia, for example. Or US government backing of Egypt's dictator (those are *not* elections). Or talk about the Kurds -- the US government ships death machines to the Turkish military, which then uses them to attack the Kurds. The US government was perfectly happy with the Iraqi government in the 1980s gassing Kurds and Iranian soldiers. Like the whole holy war business, the current mess in the middle east has been greatly inflamed over the years by US government intervention. For instance, would there have been an Islamic Revolution in Iran if the US hadn't imposed the Shah on the country for so many years?
As to the question of the "opposition" -- you say that will choose a leader of some sort. Who are these opposition people? I recall the US government giving the INC a bunch of money over the last few years. Why are they a good group of people to appoint a leader of millions of people? This reminds me of the Afghanistan thing, where the press was all talking about the "traditional Loya Jirga(sp??)" where the US government got a bunch of warlord types together to decide what would happen. Missing was all that "freedom" and "democracy" stuff that the US government likes to talk about. (Side comment on press -- mainstream US press (e.g. nytimes) is *not* some sort of stalinist or anarchist conspiracy; it reflects mainstream US business).Re:Antiwar Protest
pudge on 2003-02-15T13:36:04
Again: not addressing the issue of disarmament. Not convincing.
As to opposition and the INC, yes, the head of the Iraqi National Congress has apparently been blessed by the US government to take over. It's not just the US, though; apparently, Chalabi also has the blessing of Iran and is working to gain support from the other main opposition groups (last I heard, a couple of weeks ago, a summit was planned for today in Northern Iraq).
Re:Antiwar Protest
mary.poppins on 2003-02-15T15:24:49
Again: not addressing the issue of disarmament. Not convincing.
Do you see any connection between the actions of the US government and violence in the world? Does this bother you? Why would anyone trust these people? I'm not saying this as a Democratic-vs-Republican thing at all -- this nasty stuff goes on whatever party is in power. The whole Afghanistan mess was brought on by the Carter administration (though of course imperialist meddling goes way back, e.g. the British Empire stirring up wars there in the 1800s).
I *am* addressing the issue of disarmament, just more broadly perhaps than you expect.
It's not just the US, though; apparently, Chalabi also has the blessing of Iran
I doubt the government of Iran has the best interests of residents of Iraq at heart. Not a great endorsement in my book, at least.
Re:Antiwar Protest
davorg on 2003-02-12T09:22:01
When you are out there marching with the Imams - who want to establish Taliban-style regimes everywhere, anti-American Communists and pacifist who would have given in to Hitler, think about which side you may be choosing.I was taking your comments seriously until you spoilt it with that piece of stereotyping.
If you only take away one piece of information from this discussion then let it be this - the Anti-war movement in the UK is not just made up of hippies, socialists and radical Muslims. A complete cross-section of British society is getting involved. I really hope that the US media has decent coverage of Saturday's demo because I think that a lot of people are going to be surprised at the people who turn up.
Re:Antiwar Protest
jordan on 2003-02-12T17:05:39
- I was taking your comments seriously until you spoilt it with that piece of stereotyping.
It would have been stereotyping had I said that all or even most of the marchers were fringe types. I did not say that.
What I said was that you would be marching with those types. I think this is undeniable.
It's ironic to me that you would show solidarity with those who would take your rights away to protest in the future.
Re:Antiwar Protest
davorg on 2003-02-12T19:11:49
It's ironic to me that you would show solidarity with those who would take your rights away to protest in the future.Sure, if they were marching for the right to take away my rights to protest in the future, then that would be a problem. But they're not. They are marching for the same reason as me. To protest against this war. This is a single issue march. And on that single issue I agree with everyone else who will be there on Saturday. You can't draw any other conclusions about the beliefs of anyone woh will be on the march.
This is the one thing that I'm hearing most often - people who wouldn't normally be seen with five miles of this kind of demo are putting aside their dislike of the kinds of people who will be their fellow marchers and joining in anyway. Because they see it as important.
Re:Antiwar Protest
jordan on 2003-02-12T21:28:15
- Sure, if they were marching for the right to take away my rights to protest in the future, then that would be a problem. But they're not.
Are you sure? If you asked a militant Imam, he might well say that their opposition to the war is part of a greater plan to bring down America and that the aim of bringing down America is part of a greater plan to bring about a World Islamic state.
I would want to distance myself from these monsters, but that's just me.
If you live to see, God Forbid, the destruction of America at the hands of the terrorists, try to think back to what could have been done differently. I don't think backing off and letting them and their allies operate with impunity is how to prevent this horrific future.
Re:Antiwar Protest
pudge on 2003-02-12T04:44:21
As to it being "clearly just about the oil," what do you mean by that? Do you mean the US is trying to steal the oil; if so, why didn't Bush 41 and Cheney march into Baghdad when they had the chance? If not, what do you mean?
As to stability, the whole point -- one which the UN Security Council has agreed with on many occasions -- is that Iraq is a threat to the stability of the region until it is disarmed. And all of us know that Iraq has not, for a decade now, been cooperating with disarmament.
As to rights: the US, and the UN, fought a war with Iraq. We won. They lost. We had a choice at that time: we could forcibly remove Hussein and his regime and do what was necessary to disarm them, or we could allow them to disarm themselves. As a condition of the cessation of hostilities, we allowed them to disarm themselves. They have -- again, as everyone knows -- failed to cooperate with the UN disarmament process. That Iraq has continually violated the terms for the cessation of hostilities precisely means that the US has a right to go in and fix the problem, removing Hussein if necessary.
Think of it as Iraq being on parole, and violating the terms of its parole. We revoke parole, sending them back to jail. Plan B (parole, self-disarmament) failed, so we go back to Plan A (jail, forced disarmament).
I suppose you might claim the UN, not the US, was at war, but that isn't how we see it.
Re:Antiwar Protest
davorg on 2003-02-12T19:05:47
As to it being "clearly just about the oil," what do you mean by that? Do you mean the US is trying to steal the oil; if so, why didn't Bush 41 and Cheney march into Baghdad when they had the chance? If not, what do you mean?This is what I mean. There are many countries around the world with human rights violations on their records, or who have weapons of mass destruction, or who have repeatedly ignored UN resolutions. So the obvious question is why pick on Iraq? And the answer that most easily comes to mind is because Iraq has a large amount of oil and a large number of people in the US who have a lot to say in the choice of targets also have a lot of personal wealth tied up in the oil industry.
Re:Antiwar Protest
pudge on 2003-02-12T19:37:03
You are not actually saying anything there, you are insinuating, and I do not know what you are insinuating. Is America going to take Iraq's oil fields, something the Bush administration has said in no uncertain terms it will not do? Is it trying to get lower oil prices, despite that war will increase oil prices for the forseeable future? What exactly are you insinuating?
Further, that the answer comes most easily to your mind isn't exactly compelling. More to the point, you have completely disregarded many things that make Iraq unique, including the fact that of all the other rogue nations you could mention, it is currently the only one that lost a war with the UN and is defying the terms of disarmament under the cease-fire that ended that war.
Again, this is not a new thing. We are now coming up on 12 years since Resolution 687 was adopted by the Security Council, which mandated the disarmament that everyone agrees Iraq has never fully and unconditionally cooperated with, as required. Read Part C. Iraq has never submitted to this, then or now. Also read measure 34:
[The Security Council]... Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
It is not insignificant that Iraq has lost a war with the UN and that it has certain obligations which must be met, and that the UN Security Council stated 12 years ago that if Iraq does not cooperate, that the Council will take further steps to implement the policies of the resolution. This difference between Iraq and other states is not insignificant, it is the point.
If you like, you can continue to think Iraq is no different than any other rogue state but for its oil. But it's not true. I don't mind if you think we shouldn't go to war because you just think war is wrong, or because you think that the threat doesn't warrant it, etc. I'll disagree, but I won't mind. But when you just ignore the facts of Iraq being in a unique situation, it's a bit frustrating. Come on now, I came here for an argument.;-)
I've noticed while travelling or living abroad that demos tend to vary greatly in size depending on local culture. In Paris 100-200k happens on a regular basis, same thing in Brussels (proportionately). 500k happens once every 5 years, and we've been over a million five times in the past fifty years or so (though two of those were the Libération and the World Cup). On the other hand US and Australian demos tend to be really small (say, 25 people on the curb count as a demo). So how big are your typical London demos? Are the cops often violent?
I hope it goes well and many people show up. Are you having "London Perl Mongers for Peace" pannels?
I strongly suspect that this could be the largest demo that London has ever seen.
IIRC The record for a peaceful demonstration was over a million, at a demonstration at some point during the nineteenth century. (Hence as a proportion of the popluation would have been much greater than 1 million now)
Hopefully someone helpful will now tell me the details.
