no to war on iraq demo 28.9.02

[mozaz]

"We will not support war, no matter what reason or rhetoric is offered by politicians or the media. War in our time and in this context is indiscriminate, a war against innocents and against children."

demo london 28.9.02

allright people seems a long time off this demo: however if you do your bit ie keep this thred here on the front page and tell your mates hopefully we can make this massive:

info you need:

STOP BUSH & BLAIR'S WAR
TELL NEW LABOUR...

DON'T ATTACK IRAQ!

DEMONSTRATE: 12noon, Saturday 28 September. Speaker's Corner, Hyde Park, Central London
Called by the Stop the War Coalition and the Muslim Association of Britain. Supported by CND.

web sites:

peace.lowtech.org
http://www.stopwar.org.uk

facts you need:
In Iraq between 4 and
8 thousand CHILDREN have been dying every month for the past 11 years as a direct result of US and UK policies. New Labour call it: "ethical foreign policy." We use the word: GENOCIDE

please do your bit keep this thred here attend and organise NOW for the demo in london on the 28th:

mozaz:

 

[ClosetRioter]

Thanks for the link to Stop the War, I've been trying to find their site for ages.

However, while I wish to get fully involved in their campaign I'm worried about it - longterm. I have no intention of joining a pacifist organisation, the world isn't so simple that 'Stop the War' can be a permanent slogan. I fully supported the protest over Afghanistan, and I support this new protest, in part. Sanctions have only hurt the Iraqi people and I feel an attack at this moment would just be wrong. However, there could well be circumstances in the coming months in which an attack on Iraq would have to be considered as an option. In which case, what of 'Stop the War' then? I'd hope that it has longterm ambitions, almost a supporting act for Amnesty - while Amnesty assess the human rights implications without campaigning against war, 'Stop the War' could become the voice of morality in terms of war aims, stratgey and why it is being fought. A head in the sand approach in which war is always wrong is just not realistic, and sadly, not a longterm option.

I'd be interested in responses to these questions from people with a more intimate knowledge of the organisation.

Mike

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

I'm not an insider but Stop The War is a broad umbrella organisation and all sorts of people have marched under the banner. Believe me, not all of them are pacifist. Maybe even the majority aren't. I'm certainly not.

'Stop the War' is a simple catchy PR slogan and something that people can identify with in certain situations. So when you don't want war in certain situations, you march under the banner. When you do want war, then you don't. It's as simple as that.

You go with what works at the time. I think people are grateful just to get the numbers in cases like this, so they'll be glad that you turn up, irrespective of what your views on action at any other time in the future are.

 

[letsgetfree]

STWC is not pacifisit, neither is everyone in it. Being anti war is NOT being a pacfisit

 

[ClosetRioter]

STWC is not pacifisit, neither is everyone in it. Being anti war is NOT being a pacfisit

I'm aware of that, thanks. I'd classify myself as anti-war, but I'm also well aware that there are sometimes circumstances in which war cannot be avoided, and maybe even is necessary. However, with all wars there must surely be conditions which are met. For instance, on balance I felt that NATO's intervention in Kosovo was required by the made a serious of appalling blunders and bad tactical areas - the Serbs were victims there as well, and the NATO operation seemed to ignore this. There is surely a need for an organisation at times of necessary war to check the motives and aims of those who are fighting and to campaign on HOW the war should be fought. Do you think 'Stop the War' will ever fulfil this role, or are there other organisations which, in your opinion, meet this function?
Mike

 

[john x]

Originally posted by ClosetRioter

and to campaign on HOW the war should be fought. Do you think 'Stop the War' will ever fulfil this role, or are there other organisations which, in your opinion, meet this function?
Mike

I know you're very young but your logic here is nearly as dubious as your logic for being a member of the Countryside Alliance.

john x

 

[anti-capitalist]

Great poster for the Don't Attack Iraq demo:

http://www.swp.org.uk/RESOURCE/dontattack_28sept.pdf

 

[ClosetRioter]

I know you're very young but your logic here is nearly as dubious as your logic for being a member of the Countryside Alliance.

I'm not *very* young and I don't see any need to be patronising in your response. I don't see any flawed logic here, either. As far as I was aware STWC was a relatively new organisation and, as has already been said, it does not necessarily go without saying that their ranks are pacifist.

'Stop the War' is a simple catchy PR slogan and something that people can identify with in certain situations.

Given this statement, I was merely wondering whether people could conceive of circumstances in which Britain is forced to goto war, or in which going to war does appear to be the 'right' thing to do (such as WWII, for instance), but that the 'STWC' could still have a function, such as a modern version of the 'Just War Theory'. There was a widespread outcry over NATO's use of cluster bombs in Kosovo and their targeting of the bridge over the Danube and the Serb TV station - but as I recall there was no organisation which spoke out against BOTH (Amnesty probably did in the case of the Serb TV station). Surely 'STWC' could have wider, more longterm remit - concerning the ethics of war. The attack on Afghanistan was ethically questionable, as is the current US proposal about Iraq, but in times when war is necessary surely they could speak out aboiut the conduct with which the war is fought. Or, are they merely going for a short-term agenda? That was my question, and I don't see anything illogical there.

Also john x can I refer you back to the Countryside Alliance thread where your only input has been one of class. You've made no comment as to my response justifying my membership of CA or my repeated attempts to explain that regardless of perceptions (true or false) about some of the elements within the CA I know a wide range of people living in the countryside who are members - showing that at least THEY are united, regardless of any 'apparent' battle you see on class grounds.

Mike

 

[john x]

Originally posted by ClosetRioter


I'm not *very* young and I don't see any need to be patronising in your response.

Sorry, I was not trying to be patronising. Age is a relative thing and to someone over twice your age, 19 does seem very young.

The Countryside Alliance is a front for the pro-foxhunting lobby. The fact that there are real issues of concern in the countryside does not alter this. The issue of class is more important than that of location. A few years ago the BNP involved itself in green politics. If they had called a march based around environmental issues, even as an environmentalist, I would not have supported it. Anyone who does not support foxhunting should not support the Countryside Alliance. Other issues to do with rural life would be much better served if they weren't under the umbrella of an organisation inherited from the British Field Sports Society.

As for the Stop the War campaign, I cannot see any foreseeable scenario where it would support a 'just war' against Iraq. Any current moves towards war with Iraq are based exclusively in American domestic politics and are without any moral foundation.

The latest poll shows 52% of the British public are against any war with Iraq. This figure is growing. Anyone who is not a member of the American Republican party or a defence contractor, has no interest in supporting this war.

john x

 

[PatelsCornerShop]

ClosetRioter,

I think that you're perhaps being overcautious on the STW front. It's just there as an umbrella name that people can unify under for demos. Far better to use one name than for myriads of others. It gives the campaign something to latch on to.

I don't think people associated with STW have any particular ideology as such. STW is just a practical organisation.

For more info, you can check out their website

www. stopwar.org.uk (take out space between the www. and stopwar.org.uk)

 

[ClosetRioter]

Sorry, I was not trying to be patronising. Age is a relative thing and to someone over twice your age, 19 does seem very young.

I'm sorry - having posted for a number of years on a Formula 1 newsgroup, of all places, I've become overly sensitive about my age reflecting the quality of my posts - my chip on my shoulder, sorry!

The Countryside Alliance is a front for the pro-foxhunting lobby. The fact that there are real issues of concern in the countryside does not alter this. The issue of class is more important than that of location. A few years ago the BNP involved itself in green politics. If they had called a march based around environmental issues, even as an environmentalist, I would not have supported it. Anyone who does not support foxhunting should not support the Countryside Alliance. Other issues to do with rural life would be much better served if they weren't under the umbrella of an organisation inherited from the British Field Sports Society.

Without meaning to turn this thread, or the one about the CA, solely into a rwo about shooting and hunting (which I've argued about before) at present I'm not opposed to both - which is one, but by no means the most important, reason why I've decided to support the CA. I've spoken to someone recently, who I regard as right wing who I expected to be in favour of the CA, who said that YES it does have links with the National Front - although he believed this to be amongst the younger members. This is something I will check out, as I wish to have no association with the BNP. All I can say is that the friends I have who support the CA can in no way be regarded as NF supporters, but I agree that that isn't enough to satisfy my curiosity. However, I still state that the countryside needs a body to fight for it. I'd be hughely disappointed if the CA, as the most prominent of any such organisation, was as nationalistic as some of these posts suggest. (And by that I don't mean to doubt what you've said. The link may be slight, but after what has been said I'm increasingly prepared to accept that it is there).

As for the Stop the War campaign, I cannot see any foreseeable scenario where it would support a 'just war' against Iraq. Any current moves towards war with Iraq are based exclusively in American domestic politics and are without any moral foundation.

I completely agree with you. Previous weapons inspectors seriously doubt that Saddam has had the time to renew his supply of chemical and biological weapons, let alone nuclear (if he ever had any) [this comes from a report by John Simpson]. However, Saddam cares nothing for his people and I do also forsee a time when he will again pose a serious threat to the West. The world WOULD be a better place without him, but any move should be with the support of the Middle East and susbstantial evidence that Iraq poses the threat, neither of which exists at the moment. However, all I'm saying is that I do forsee a time when an attck on Saddam could be justified. John Simpson is a 'hero' of mine and the one hour profile he did of Saddam was damnigngly critical of the West, but was also careful not to underestimate the threat that Saddam posed.

I think that you're perhaps being overcautious on the STW front. It's just there as an umbrella name that people can unify under for demos. Far better to use one name than for myriads of others. It gives the campaign something to latch on to.

Yes, perhaps I am being overcautious. I have no problem marching under this banner in September. However, having offered further support to the organisation, and suggestions of becoming a sponsor, I want to ensure that this is a fight I'm prepared to carrying on fighting.

Mike

 

[selamlar]

I know a wide range of people living in the countryside who are members - showing that at least THEY are united, regardless of any 'apparent' battle you see on class grounds.

No! I grew up in rural South Staffordshire and the one thing that is absolutely apparent, more so than in cities etc, is the class divide. My mum (a dentist) got 'black listed' because she refused to treat Lady Stamford (local nob) before anyone else. The wages paid to game keepers, labourers, beaters are appauling whilst 'agri-business' rakes it in. Further evidence of the massive split in rural society can be seen in the rift in the NFU. To top it all, remember that the Tolpuddle Martyrs were farm labourers.

 

[ClosetRioter]

No! I grew up in rural South Staffordshire and the one thing that is absolutely apparent, more so than in cities etc, is the class divide. My mum (a dentist) got 'black listed' because she refused to treat Lady Stamford (local nob) before anyone else. The wages paid to game keepers, labourers, beaters are appauling whilst 'agri-business' rakes it in. Further evidence of the massive split in rural society can be seen in the rift in the NFU. To top it all, remember that the Tolpuddle Martyrs were farm labourers.

Please note that I always talk from my own experience and in my area I see no such prejudice. Obviously there are employees and employers, but the people I know feel that the system works, and that is the city types who wish to interfere with a way of life that they value. Now I accept that that may not be true in all areas, but neither is your example true for everywhere either.

Mike

 

[Niubi]

Great, Will Be There....

 

[nomoney]

niubi
think twice before associating yourself with the trotskyists and religious christian and islamist nutters

 

[Abu Arak]

Originally posted by nomoney
niubi
think twice before associating yourself with the trotskyists and religious christian and islamist nutters

I'll be there and I am not a trotskyist christian or islamist nutter...