When is too far, too far?

[xane]

Originally posted by maxi--
Im ashamed of our government, ...

Exercise your right to vote them out then, something that is sadly denied many people in the world, something that many others died fighting for.

You _do_ vote don't you ?

 

[ReActor]

Originally posted by xane
Exercise your right to vote them out then, something that is sadly denied many people in the world, something that many others died fighting for.

You _do_ vote don't you ?

Yeah, sure, vote away. But when it comes to it, what does it mean? If this war has reminded us of anything, it's that no one fucking listens to us.

Personally, I'm still just about pro-war, but what's depressed me about this whole affair is how powerless it's made me feel.

I mean, if I was anti-war, who would I vote for? Labour? Nope. Conservatives? Nope. Lib Dems? Oh man...

 

[ReActor]

Originally posted by *Exor*
He's right. Protestors are shit.

Oh, Exor. I miss you sometimes

 

[Durzel]

I personally love the fact that the anti-war protestors have been completely and utterly ignored. Despite the million or so that turned out in London, their fairy woolly liberal pacifist attitudes were just swept aside.

I loved it. I almost wanted the war to take place just to rub the hippie nancy faces in it.

Like it or not the War is going on, and the people "in the know" know more about why the War was necessary than anyone, either pro or anti war. It's not going to suddenly stop, so you might as well stop picking daisies and get behind our boys! Or stop whining, either works.

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

You can back the 'boys' and still pick the daisies.

 

[Tom]

The days of Greenham Common type protests are a thing of the past.

 

[mr.Blacky]

or eat them

 

[danger]

Originally posted by Durzel
I personally love the fact that the anti-war protestors have been completely and utterly ignored. Despite the million or so that turned out in London, their fairy woolly liberal pacifist attitudes were just swept aside.

I loved it. I almost wanted the war to take place just to rub the hippie nancy faces in it.

Like it or not the War is going on, and the people "in the know" know more about why the War was necessary than anyone, either pro or anti war. It's not going to suddenly stop, so you might as well stop picking daisies and get behind our boys! Or stop whining, either works.

You'd of been quite happy to see many Iraqi/british/american troops die to prove a point, that people with a differing opinion to yourself are fools and should be ridiculed... great.

I started out as completely anti war 8 months ago, my stance has moved a lot more towards it over time. I just find it irritating that so many people are so dogmatic to the point they believe people with the opposite point of view are below contempt.

I see merit with both sides to be honest, Saddam is a ruthless and evil dictator who should be removed, prefereably involving his own slow and painful death, thus saving the lives of and improving the quality of life for the iraqi people. On the other hand an unacceptably high number of people will be killed. Which is the lesser of two evils? That's each individuals choice to make and I won't ridicule anyone for taking either stance.

I'd go on but we've all heard all the arguments for both sides and all the counters, so to summize I guess it would be nice if some of the hard liners could be slightly open minded on the whole issue.</rant>

 

[ReActor]

Originally posted by Durzel
I personally love the fact that the anti-war protestors have been completely and utterly ignored. Despite the million or so that turned out in London, their fairy woolly liberal pacifist attitudes were just swept aside.

I loved it. I almost wanted the war to take place just to rub the hippie nancy faces in it.

Like it or not the War is going on, and the people "in the know" know more about why the War was necessary than anyone, either pro or anti war. It's not going to suddenly stop, so you might as well stop picking daisies and get behind our boys! Or stop whining, either works.

Well, as I said, I'm not against this war so I'm kind of playing devil's advocate.

I don't see a reason for the protests to stop. They didn't want the war to happen, and the fact that it is happening doesn't change that. In fact, if I was a protester, the fact that the war was going on would make me want to protest more. Protesting isn't about having a direct influence on day-to-day events, it's about voicing your dissent, and there's certainly plenty of dissent around for that to continue.

There are masses of people against this war, not just in this country but all over the world. To dismiss them all as flower-picking hippies seems ridiculous to me. 149 of them are MPs in our parliament.

Just because the prominent spokespeople of the anti-war movement consist of the aforementioned dirty hippies, vain Hollywood morons, Islamic fundamentalists, posing musicians and truant schoolchildren, doesn't mean that the arguments against war are invalid.

Ok, maybe I'm not making a very good case here...

The real thing that bugs me is the "swept aside" thing. On the day that around a million people were protesting in Hyde Park, Tony Blair said (paraphrase) "if there are a million people marching, that's still not as many as the deaths Saddam is responsible for". Now, it's a valid point; but to dismiss such a hefty portion of your electorate in a sentence like that seems like madness to me.

It sets a dangerous precedent. What else could they get away with? What else will happen whether we like it or not?

 

[danger]

Originally posted by ReActor
... <Snip> ...

[parliamentary equivalent of giving head] Would the honourable gentleman agree that everything he just said made perfect sense?

 

[xane]

Originally posted by ReActor
... but to dismiss such a hefty portion of your electorate in a sentence like that seems like madness to me.

Since when was the government system in this country run in direct response to people's "dissent" ? I suppose if one million people marched against asylum seekers we should immediately kick them all out (the asylum seekers that is, not the Daily Mail readers). Just think how much support the BNP could drum up nationwide if they disguised themselves as a "clean" party like Stop The War have done ? That's actually quite frightening.

Blair had a vote in the House of Commons, they backed him up (despite the revolt), thats how the government system works, it's a Democratic Representative parliament. To all purposes he went about this the right way, there was no "sweeping aside" as it was all done above board.

Democracy is also about _not_ getting your way, people who think that just because a minority of demonstrators shout loudest then we should dump the traditional methods of election and decision making. If you want to live in a democratic society then you just have to accept things that you don't agree with, even the most horrible things like war and death.

In November 2002 the UNSC made a decision to go to war (a.k.a. "serious consequences") in Resolution 1441, and the US/UK had proposed the Resolution long before that. So where was the democratic protest back then ? Don't you think all this protest was a bit late in the day ?

Besides, the "million marchers" represented such a broad band of opinon, ranging from "No War under any circumstances" to "No War without a second Resolution", to "No War until you give Iraq another 30 days", to "Make Tea Not War" etc. You don't run international politics on vague decisions, that's why Saddam has got away with it for so long, the reluctance of anyone to make a hard decision.

 

[nath]

Thing is, if you're gunna say this war is about womd, then in my opinion you should stick with it. Terrible though the plight of the Iraqi people, as has been said before, it's not our problem. Regime change is not our mandate.

So concentrating on the womd, my personal thought is: was war *REALLY* necessary. Was Saddam *REALLY* gunna attack any time soon. Do the ends (Saddams disarmament) justify the means (going to war, possibly starting ww3 somewhere down the line). Was it *REALLY* that desperate a cause to go in their with tanks.

The fact is, resolution 1441 was NOT A TRIGGER FOR WAR. The US stated when proposing it that they would approach the UN before action. That's why people backed it. The US *did* approach the UN, and the UN didn't back it.

The reasons there weren't protests then is because (the intelligent) anti-war people are not anti war at all costs. There are reasons for war at times, but this time it's not valid. That's why NOW people are protesting.

And Durz, come on don't be so naive. You honestly believe that US and UK have this vast knowledge about the situation and are doing the right thing for the people? Puh-lease. I'm sure they do know more about the situation than the average joe, but my feeling is that whatever they know, it's not a justification for war. If it was so clear and simple, then why haven't the UN backed it? France would have vetoed any second resolution, so they said, but the way it was going, it never would have got that far anyway. UK/US didn't even have "the moral majority".


edit: xane, you're right we shouldn't change the entire system because a bunch of people protest about a certain situation. That doesn't mean people shouldn't protest.

 

[Gumbo]

On the democracy thing, I remember seeing a Greenpeace guy being interviewed when they were blockading some ships with the Rainbow Warrior and he said, "Democracy has failed, now we have to take things into our own hands!".

Er, Sorry there goes my respect for that lot, as I kind of like the fact we have democracy here.

 

[nath]

You're right, that's a stupid thing to say.

Kinda similar to "the UN has failed, now we'll take things in to our own hands" doncha think?

 

[xane]

Here's an interesting document from a reasonably credible source (Stockholm Peace Institute), bias only towards UNSCOM.

Iraq: The UNSCOM Experience

As for Resolution 1441, it gave a clear time limit and a clear result, the UNSC knew exactly what they were agreeing to when it said "serious consequences". The proposal by the US/UK was not put lightly, everyone including the Iraqis knew the war had been planned and costed and deemed feasible and winnable by the Americans, I'm pretty sure Bush had not been in the oval office five minutes when he started planning this. No-one can lay claim to not knowing what was in store if 1441 was not adhered to, this time it was an ultimatum in the true sense of the word.

Anti-war people did nothing because they'd never have got the kind of support, Iraq's behaviour back then was a precept to war in many people's minds, the "war only in extreme circumstances" crowd (who are not strictly "anti-war") were satisfied because they did not actually think Iraq would defy it this time. In glorious technicolour hindsight, this was a big mistake by everyone.

France, China and Russia were also led on by Iraq, after signing oil agreements they stood to win the most if sanctions got lifted and Saddam remained in power. No-one ever actually thought that Iraq would continue to snub the UN after 1441, the "plan" was for Saddam to slowly back down, for oil exports to increase, and for France and Russia to get back their money.

Even after the time limit expired, even after America started building up troops, Iraq remained defiant and not one single requirement of the original 1991 Resolutions was met. The missiles destroyed by Blix were not part of the agreement as they had actually been built _after_ 1991, effectively Saddam had taken a step forward and a step backward, there was no ground lost.

You can say as much as you like about the deals and scheming that went on behind 1441, but Iraq was just as responsible for this sorry mess.

Re: protests. My point is not against protesting per se, but against protesters who expect their actions to make a difference and whine when they don't.

 

[Gumbo]

Originally posted by nath
You're right, that's a stupid thing to say.

Kinda similar to "the UN has failed, now we'll take things in to our own hands" doncha think?

Nope because in my opinion a 17th resolution was not necessary and the 16th resolution, 1441 was justification enough.

 

[*Exor*]

You're all missing the point. Proestors are dirty because they don't wash very often. Oh, and they don't pay tax either because they're unemployed. They all break the law themselves by smoking dope (every last one of them, 'man'), yet whinge when they think a war is illegal!

Silly cunts.

 

[nath]

Since when is taking copious amounts of ecstasy legal, Mr Buckley?

Gumbo, the fact the US/UK don't have UN backing. So essentially they said "we'll do it anyway".


edit: by the by, I don't smoke dope, and I wash frequently.

 

[Gumbo]

Originally posted by nath

Gumbo, the fact the US/UK don't have UN backing. So essentially they said "we'll do it anyway".

You refuse to see my point, you don't need to agree with it, just see it...

1441 gave the UN's backing of force against Iraq if they didn't submit voluntarily to weapons inspections, and co-operate fully with the inspectors. There was no resolution saying that the US/UK should not go to war.

 

[xane]

nath, you are bringing a pointless comparison.

Greenpeace are able to protest because democracy gives them that platform, to claim "democracy has failed" is rather stupid, they are basically whining that their point has been ignored, in fact in a democracy a lot of points get ignored, that's why they don't have a clue.

On the other hand, it's not like Iraq has been adhering to UN Resolutions, in fact there aren't many other nations that do either (mentioning no names). The UN exists to resolve differences, in this context it has spectacularly failed due to the resolve of Iraq to consistantly defy whatever requirements have been asked of it.

To equate the UN with a concept like "democracy" is not a valid argument.

Besides, I'd like to hear what you thought "serious consequences" means, I certainly think it equates to military actions considering the condictions it was applied, your argument that the US "will do it anyway" is moot, its open to an interpretion as to what "serious consequences" refers to.

 

[nath]

Gumbo: Well then that's a semantics thing. The fact is, the US said that they would consult the UN before acting, and that violation of 1441 was not an automatic trigger for war. The fact that the UN did not then agree to war suggests that it's illegal. I see your point, and I'm not one of those fuckwits who says I'm right you're wrong, but I just find it very difficult to see it as legal given all the evidence to the contrary.


edit: Xane, I know "serious consequences" almost undoubtedly means war. But there's no mistaking "1441 is not an automatic trigger for war", and "we will consult the UN first". The UN felt, as I do, that war was not necessary. That perhaps 1441 was in violation, but there wasn't enough of a threat to warrant war. As a result, the US/UK decided to go it alone.

 

[Maljonic]

Originally posted by Durzel


Like it or not the War is going on, and the people "in the know" know more about why the War was necessary than anyone, either pro or anti war. It's not going to suddenly stop, so you might as well stop picking daisies and get behind our boys! Or stop whining, either works.

It's true, and we wont even know the half of it untill long after the war is over.

 

[Gumbo]

Fair enough nath, unfortunatly the legal bit of it will never be properly tested, and our attorny general who decided it was legal can't really be relied upon to be entirely unbiased.

I suppose there was nothing to stop another member of the UNSC from tabling a resolution declaring any invasion of Iraq as illegal. Obviously it would have been vetoed by the US and UK, however it would have been interesting to see who would have voted for it.

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by xane

Besides, I'd like to hear what you thought "serious consequences" means

Cessation of Chocolate Rations obviously.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by nath
I know "serious consequences" almost undoubtedly means war. But there's no mistaking "1441 is not an automatic trigger for war", and "we will consult the UN first". The UN felt, as I do, that war was not necessary. That perhaps 1441 was in violation, but there wasn't enough of a threat to warrant war. As a result, the US/UK decided to go it alone.

The same arguments can be applied to France and Russia after they declared they would veto any resolution that gave war as an ultimatum, in direct opposition to what they agreed in 1441, they chose to "go it alone" and disregard what other UNSC members thought.

As I said, neither France or Russia, seriously expected Iraq to defy 1441, but they did. The veto was a last ditch attempt to keep Saddam in power, which is what they wanted all the time.

France made the huge diplomatic blunder of stating they would veto regardless of the decision of the other UNSC members, thereby stifling open debate, if anyone wrecked the UNSC it would be them, it effectively gave the US/UK no other option.

 

[nath]

Now that I completely disagree with. France totally put their foot right down their throat and fucked up big time. They demonstrated their obvious lack of a moral stand point and showed there true reason for not wanting the war. The US/UK however pounced on this and used them as scapegoats for why the UNSC wasn't really going their way. "There's no point going for a second resolution if France are gunna veto it anyway!!" Well that's fantastic, but there's no way the resolution would have got the moral majority anyway. France wouldn't NEED to use their veto.

Of course because it never got to that, this is conjecture. But I truely believe France had nothing to do with the failure of going through the UN, they simply fucked up and allowed themselves to be blamed for the whole thing.

 

[Guest]

i would like to see some of these weapons of mass destruction (apart from chemical weapons what exactly does that mean). Iraq isnt exactly spilling over with VX gas is it. Fair enough he needed sorting out but where are the weapons.

Also, who cares that he lived a life of luxury whilst the rest of the population were starving, thats all over the history books in other countries even the uk in the times of old.

As cuba gooding jnr said in jerry mcquire "show me the chemical weapons"

 

[dysfunction]

As Arnie said in Terminator: "Leave and Dont come back"!!

 

[Guest]

im sorry if my opinion differs from yours, but i can freely state wtf i like tbh, and i feel that point was a valid one. the tv reporting atm is showing his luxury lifestyle, its almost like there saying "well, theres fuck all weapons but didnt he live like a king"

 

[Maljonic]

It's all a bit like killing the wicked witch in the wizard of oz, everyone will be dancing around singing, ha ha the witch is dead... at least that's the way the generals seem to be saying it on the news, well sort of anyway.