Not in my name

gurramok

I think he is referring to maybe thousands of political opponents of Sadam who perhaps wouldn't have had the luxury of protesting against him prior to the war in the same way as the London protesters did today.

Problem is that there are many countries where this is happening and not a whim of complaint is made. Many countries are ruled by brutal dictators and no intervention occurs. (Plus they do not have oil)

Lets pick one:
Burma is a country where freedom of expression is brutally surpressed, the exact same circumstances as had being under Saddam is occuring. The country is ruled by a military junta for many years where a pro-democracy activist beat the junta in an election many years ago and is still under house arrest ever since. Many thousands of her supporters have been murdered over the years.

Why hasnt Bush who proclaims he a is a 'freedom lover' invaded this country and 'liberalise' the population??

Isn't that the excuse now that the pro-war side are peddling for the Iraq war since the WMD argument was flawed.

Hypocrisy in action on the Bush-blair side.

Originally posted by gurramok
Problem is that there are many countries where this is happening and not a whim of complaint is made. Many countries are ruled by brutal dictators and no intervention occurs. (Plus they do not have oil)

Agreed.

The problem also is for example that Putin went down the mall freely in a chariot with Queen Elizabeth with hardly a protester in sight despite all that has been going on in chechnya.

The mind boggles, when one considers one persons human rights should be as important as the next and protested about as equally regardless of what country is involved.

mm

bonkey

I find it interesting that when people opposed the war, those who supported it talked about it being an expression of anti-Americanism. Now that people are saying that they are generally not anti-American (which is what the first poll Sand referred to was asking), it is being construed as being in facour of these same (and consequent) set of actions.

Strangely enough, many of those who were opposed to the war said that they were not anti-American.....which point of view is entirely supported by the polls as well.

jc

mr_angry

It seems to me that public opinion varies widely depending on where you live. For example, public opinion in France, Germany, Australia and the vast majority of the Middle East were against war. Does British and American public opinion matter more simply because they have the guns?

I think this whole thing reeks of hypocrasy and self-interest. It would be somewhat easier to swallow if it wasn't for the "one rule for us and our mates, and another for the people we don't like" mentality of the American government. I just hope the American people have enough sense to liberate themselves!

shotamoose

Originally posted by mr_angry
It seems to me that public opinion varies widely depending on where you live. For example, public opinion in France, Germany, Australia and the vast majority of the Middle East were against war.

Public opinion in Britain was against the war too.

sovtek

Originally posted by mr_angry
. I just hope the American people have enough sense to liberate themselves!

Doing the best I can with what I have to work with.

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
Strangely enough, many of those who were opposed to the war said that they were not anti-American.....which point of view is entirely supported by the polls as well.

jc

I find it funny when people call me anti-American.
I actually thought Bush should come to Britian so he would be faced with a vigilant press and huge expression of dissent. The only problem I had with his visit was the altering of tradition so as to somewhat insulate the child president.

Sand

Sand, Blair did not get elected at the last election on the basis of waging war against another country, it was not in Labours manifesto, not even mentioned in pre-election promises.

Of course, but dont we elect our leaders with the knowledge that they will have to react to situations which are not known at the present time?

I wonder if you've ever paid the slightest bit of attention to what the anti-war side have said. The weight of public oppposition was just a part of the case against Blair's decision to go to war - it was also wrong in principle. Public opinion was not the determinant but an important factor. Please go on and search through my old posts if you feel this is in any way inconsistent, otherwise stop making these spurious claims I can only think you know to be wrong.

Oh Ive got better things to do with my time than search through hundreds of threads dating back up to 8 months I think. After all your happy to admit that the way Blair and Bush went against the polls was an important part of the anti-war argument, so what would be the point? The attempt to discredit Bush and Blair as dictators for not going with the polls is also summed up beautifully in the way the anti-war crowd tore down a fake statue of Bush, in a parody of the Iraqis tearing down Saddams - And the anti-war movement confirm how deeply meaningful and impressive that tearing down of the statue was by attempting to copy and hijack it. Highest form of praise is copying.

So now weve decided that the polls played an important role in the movements philosophy then what else played a role - principle? Yes, well be hearing more of this side of the argument and less and less about the polls as we go on as the anti-war movement looks a bit hypocritical, criticising actions in the face of polled opinion whilst taking action in the face of polled opinion. Would you agree that it is a bit hypocritical?

So principle - whats the anti-war movements principle? Well lets be generous and say there against war, for political leaders finding just and peaceful solutions to problems and wholly against the human rights abuses and opression that often accompanies conflicts.

So thats why they were out against George Bush, Satans chief representitive on Earth. I was reading up on Bushes visit and especially caught a reference to anti-war movement claiming victory because they had ensured that Bush would not receive the VIP treatment due to security concerns ( this was http://www.mabonline.net/media/news/articles/uk2003/bushukvisitwrecked21.10.03.htm , a british muslim organisation which plays a prominent role in the anti-war movement, at least their name is on the big banner behind Bushes statue getting pulled down along with the CND and the stop the war coalition ), and the point was made that Putin had received the VIP treatment.

So I started thinking - Putin, Russia, Chechnya, Massive human rights abuses and oppression......and yet Putin is able to receive the VIP treatment, and I start thinking where was the hundreds of thousands of marchers out to show their utter disdain for such policies as witnessed in Chechnya? I dont doubt that there was probably a few principled types out there, but obviously not enough to stop Putin getting the full British welcome. And this didnt even register apparently with the MAB despite the atrocities against their spiritual brethern.

Yeah....somehow I dont see principles rallying those mass protests so inconsistently.

Anti-war people did not assume that being in the majority somehow gave them the right to silence opponents. Again, that would be not majority rule, but majority tyranny, no matter how small and tenuous the majority.

Oh Im not interested in silencing the anti war movement - If I did how would I enjoy their attempts to explain why an important factor in their argument is now not an important factor.

How people feel after the event can logically have no bearing on the arguments surrounding the lead-up to the event, since nobody knew how people would feel after the event - and nobody knows how they will feel in six months time.

A strong argument for not making polled opinion part of the case the anti war movment put forward - if only we could go back in time to warn them.

No it doesn't. I notice you couldn't actually produce a quote from that story to support your view that the media are saying that the majority support the war. Why? Because it doesn't, not even close. If you think that's an example of your beloved media conspiracy you're a fantasist. So plese, go on, have another go.

Fine your right - they rob the piece of any context and concentrate 75% of the article on what a minority group is doing and thinking and never mentions what the majority think. I guess thats pretty balanced for Indymedia....That statue being torn down by the protestors in london I mentioned? Its on page 13 of Fridays Irish times, just below it is an article with the introduction "London yesterday united in noisy but peaceful opposition to the bush visit, writes Lynne O'Donnell".

Now I looked though it but didnt find any evidence of London uniting behind the protestors policies....But youre right, of course. That was fair and balanced too wasnt it?

Firstly, you have no basis for saying that the majority have no ill-feelings towards the visitor. The results of this one poll said that 43% - last time I checked, that wasn't a majority - 'welcome the visit', which is itself not the same thing as 'have no problems with George Bush'.

Only 36% wish bush wouldnt come - which indicates 64% either welcome him or dont care whether he comes or not - i.e. no problems.

So let's brush that statement aside.

Yes, for the sake of your argument lets.

These are proper questions which anybody with a care for freedom and liberality (such as yourself, apparently) should want to see answered. That's why Blair has to defend it.

Putin. Full VIP treatment. Hundreds of thousands of protestors at home in their beds.

By your logic, if the majority (in a newspaper poll) approved of the state visit of Ceausescu in 1978 (and maybe they did) there was no question to answer.

No as I said before I dont base my opinions on opinion polls, If I felt that Ceausescu wasnt a good person to invite over and 99% of others believed he was Id still feel Ceausescu wasnt welcome as far as I was concerned. The anti-war movement happily painted Blair and Bush as anti-democratic dictators and now theyve got to deal with their own logic coming back against them - theyre going against the polls, theyre the anti-democrats now by their own logic.

That was an important part of their case. Reap it.

I think I know who you'd vote for in a Bush vs Any Democrat contest. In a two-horse race, as the US presidential contest always is, the choice unfortunately is 'with us or against us'. Still, consider the heinous slur cheerfully withdrawn.

Well Ive got to put in an important disclaimer before Corinthian arrives on the scene. Im Irish and hence the issue of which way Id vote in a US presidential election is moot. And while I agree you *think* you know what way Id vote, hypothetically, youre giving me an awful lot of scope to prove you wrong with "any democrat". US presidents tend to act fairly similar in foreign policy which is the main way they impact our lives after all.

Never said that, as you know. Jeez Sand, for someone with such a keen sense of fairness, you do a lot of misquoting.

Oh so you never said:

"But I suppose you are a George Bush fan, after all." In your first post on the thread

or:

"but you're in such constant agreement with just about everything George says and does that I just assumed " in your second post on the thread?

Assumed what exactly btw Shot? That I agreed with just about everything George says and does? Was that what you assumed?

The mind boggles, when one considers one persons human rights should be as important as the next and protested about as equally regardless of what country is involved.

ooops - I kinda hijacked your argument re: Putin and his visit. Apologies:(

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
So I started thinking - Putin, Russia, Chechnya, Massive human rights abuses and oppression......and yet Putin is able to receive the VIP treatment, and I start thinking where was the hundreds of thousands of marchers out to show their utter disdain for such policies as witnessed in Chechnya?

If Putin's own 'war on terror' bothers you so much, where were you when hundreds of thousands of people were protesting at G8 summits against amongst other things, atrocities in Chechnya, environmental destruction, GM foods, debts, AIDS, sweatshops, child labour and human rights abuses and oppression in general?

Sand makes a valid point.
Putin got all the posh treatment with none of the huge protests, despite what terror he lorded over.

Why weren't people out protesting then?

mm

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Man
Sand makes a valid point.
Putin got all the posh treatment with none of the huge protests, despite what terror he lorded over.

Why weren't people out protesting then?

I think most of the protesters would know that what Russia did to Grozny makes Baghdad look like Paris. Grozny is basically a bombed out shell of a city and there is no talk about reconstruction let alone actual reconstruction occurring.

The principles in operation, as far as I can see, is that of national self-determination and anti-expansionism. Chechnya was conquored in Czarist times and is fully part of the Russian state and recognised by the UN. Therefore the reasoning would be that whatever Russians do against the Chechans is their own business.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Man
Sand makes a valid point.
Putin got all the posh treatment with none of the huge protests, despite what terror he lorded over.

Why weren't people out protesting then?

mm

It's a point worth making, but it's not a good criticism. In much the same way, it was worth asking why America chose to topple Saddam but couldnt' care less about other dictators around the world - but that in itself was not a good argument for saying 'toppling Saddam is wrong'.

So, just because protests against Putin - and I seem to recall there were protests - were not of the same scale as those against Bush, it does not mean that protesting against Bush is somehow wrong. Why did Bush attract more protestors, though? Maybe because America is the pre-eminent world superpower, and because sizable foreign protests could - I'm not saying will - actually harm his chances of being re-elected.

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Therefore the reasoning would be that whatever Russians do against the Chechans is their own business.

My central point was that, people being hurt in their tens of thousands means the same no matter who those people are.
Those out marching against Bush didn't go out marching against Putin when he was in London - Why??
It weakens the case they have somewhat in my honest opinion.

mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
It weakens the case they have somewhat in my honest opinion.

Yes it does indeed. No question about it.

In the same sense, the US quite happily supports or ignores brutal dictatorships where convenient. This similarly weakens the case that Saddam had to go because he was an oppressor of people, assuming you are to apply the same standards to world leaders and their stances as to the average protestor.

Furthermore, in your example you are asking about protests at a specific event rather than protests in general (i.e. people did protest about Putin, even if it wasn't evident at the event(s) you felt it should be).The US support or ignoring of oppressive regimes, on the other hand, is pretty-much consistent until other influences serve to change that stance.

So, if we were to conclude that on this basis alone, the anti-war protestors were clearly showing an anti-American bias, we would also have to conclude that - at the very least - the US actions were clearly not carried out for humanitarian reasons. Now, I know you didn't conclude that, Man - I'm just taking the aspersion-casting to its logical conclusions on both sides.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
My central point was that, people being hurt in their tens of thousands means the same no matter who those people are.

Interestingly, taking that logic a few steps further, you should be able to rapidly conclude that the money spent on easing these people's suffering could have been more effectively used to ease the suffering of a far greater number of people in any number of ways (e.g. fighting massive levels of poverty, starvation, etc. around the world, fighting various diseases, etc.).

Does this not therefore further undermine the humanitarian argument? Or is hoping to alleviate the suffering of tens of thousands worth more than doing the same (or better) for hundreds of thousands to millions? By your logic, it would seem not.

Similarly, one could ask why the US is having less and less to do with Afghanistan when the vast majority of the nation is still in control of oppressive warlords, and is arguably in a worse state than it was under the Taliban. Why is so little money being put into the rebuilding of Afghanistan compared to Iraq? The Afghanis are begging for the additional $4 billion it would take to bring them up to "poor" status, while the US is spending over $20 billion to rebuild Iraq. Lets not forget either that the vast majority of the $60 billion plus which was allocated to continue the military actions was not to use to free the millions of suffering people in Afghanistan - a nation that the US already "liberated". Why is these peoples' suffering not worth bothering about, but the Iraqi peoples' is?

Seriously...you can point fingers all you like at the anti-war demonstrators and how they are inconsistent in their actions, and you'll be mostly right. On the other hand, such a stance is all to easily reversed with an even greater degree of criticism at the US.

jc

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Man
My central point was that, people being hurt in their tens of thousands means the same no matter who those people are.

But has this ever been the central issue for the protesters? Sure, the loss of life in Iraq is one of the things they use in their argument, but I always assumed that the main object of the protests was US imperialism and the idea that oil was the main motive behind the invasion.

Originally posted by bonkey

Seriously...you can point fingers all you like at the anti-war demonstrators and how they are inconsistent in their actions, and you'll be mostly right. On the other hand, such a stance is all to easily reversed with an even greater degree of criticism at the US.

Oh yes indeed that is very fair comment and I would not diss the reasons why the protesters were specifically out against Bush.

{ with a touch of sarcasm } After all he has been responsible in less than four years for a remarkable about turn in the type of welcome the U.S president would receive here in Ireland. I seem to recall tens of thousands out on the streets cheering and waving the stars and stripes when Clinton Visited here. The international policies of the U.S in the 50 years prior to that visit had very little negative impact on that welcome.
It brings us back to the ever changing public opinion that has been mentioned in this thread.{/ touch of Sarcasm ends... }

And yes of course if you applied all the money wasted on the arms race during the cold war together with what all governments spend on arms now ( and obviously more especially the U.S and Nato countries ) into a great plan for the betterment of the world then we mighn't have any starvation and maybe we could buy off some of the worlds more crazy dictators or semi-dictators allowing their people to have a better life also.

But as long as I've been alive I've seen no signs of western governments on a vast enough scale giving up their own interests for the good of the world as a whole.
Whatever Party wields power in the U.S have a greater obligation than most, given the size of their nation and consequent of that and their following their own agenda , yes they provide the world with more experience of what they can do.

I personally think though Putin deserved at least a similar reception to Bush rather than get off virtually Scott free.

A thread by the way comparing, contrasting and discusing Bush's record in office vis a vis that of Putin would be interesting.

mm

sovtek

Originally posted by Man
I personally think though Putin deserved at least a similar reception to Bush rather than get off virtually Scott free.

He hasn't gotten away scott free. I remember people being highly critical of the handling of the Moscow theatre.
People have been complaining about Russias handling of Chechnya since the onset of the war.
One criticism of the "war on terror" has been Washingtons silence on many other critical human rights issues with several different countries...Chechnya being one of the many.
If Putin had been involved in starting two wars in the past 3 years, then he very well may have hundreds of thousands dogging him at every chance.

Originally posted by sovtek

If Putin had been involved in starting two wars in the past 3 years, then he very well may have hundreds of thousands dogging him at every chance.

He has got away virtually scott free.
Considering what he is sponsoring in chechnya.

It bears striking similarities with the Iraq conflict according to Al jazeera unfortunately.
Human rights watch also makes for depressing reading.

Not wanting to take from the critisism of Bush at all by the way , but if you put his nearly four year record up along side that of Putin and his predecessor, the latters would be more muddy in my honest opinion.
Yet Putin gets to ride down the mall in the queens carriage almost unhindered.

mm

Sand

It's a point worth making, but it's not a good criticism. In much the same way, it was worth asking why America chose to topple Saddam but couldnt' care less about other dictators around the world - but that in itself was not a good argument for saying 'toppling Saddam is wrong'.

In the same sense, the US quite happily supports or ignores brutal dictatorships where convenient. This similarly weakens the case that Saddam had to go because he was an oppressor of people, assuming you are to apply the same standards to world leaders and their stances as to the average protestor.

I think its a good criticism - its obvious now that public opinion doesnt guide the protests, they happily march against it. Its also clear that principle doesnt guide the protests, unless of course the "anti-war, not in my name , what about the children, what about the children" lads approve of the Chechyen conflict - feel that its all above board , that whilst Russian and Cheychen forces engage in an orgy of violence against civillians thats not worth getting the hundreds of thousands out to protest to Putin about - and seeing as Putins country likes its foreign aid such protests might actually make a bloody difference there.

No instead we get to listen about the rather less shocking activities of the coalition in Iraq, what monsters they are. Of course Russian forces are way up there on the moral ladder - apparently Putin is not worth a protest, the suffering of the Cheychens is not worth rallying a mass protest for.

Stick an american flag on it though and youll get your mass protests. Or maybe the organisers of the stop-the-war protests still have a soft spot for their former idealogical utopia, cant bring themselves to go against Russia. Its hard not to be cynical about the self-righteous.

And these are the morally superiour, holier than thou crowd. I mean everyone knows the US and UK governments are full of rotten, evil imperialist bastards - sadly enough we expect that, its a given. But I had expected some principles to be guiding the anti-war movement - I had hoped they were the "good guys" out there fighting for the little man.

Why wasnt there protests out against Putin that even *approached* the scale of Bush? Surely the principle was the same - a terrible war with immense human suffering, and its orchestrator being feted as a guest of the Queen? Why didnt that get the crowds out?

Not representitive of public opinion. Not principled. Just a bunch of sheep. Oh look, theres a Michael Moore book sale - run quick and learn the real truth!

Seriously...you can point fingers all you like at the anti-war demonstrators and how they are inconsistent in their actions, and you'll be mostly right. On the other hand, such a stance is all to easily reversed with an even greater degree of criticism at the US.

Is it? People ask why the coalition doesnt go after say North Korea the same way it went after Saddam. Its been asked dozens of times, held up as an example of how corrupt the coalitions position is. I ask why the principled anti-war movement doesnt get out a protest when a non-american war crinimal arrives on the scene? Is it the same thing?

Not really - The invasion of Iraq has a real cost in terms of human lives, and human suffering. So would the invasion of North Korea. In Iraq, the cost is relatively low, the war was won qucikly and easily - the benefit of the new Iraq will outweigh the costs. The cost of attacking North korea would be immense - nuclear war is nearly certain, the invasion of South Korea and levelling of Seoul is even more certain. The benefit of a freer North Korea would be great but great enough to outweigh the costs of milatary action? I dont think so.

But whats the cost of getting a protest out there - nothing. No one dies, there is no serious increase in human suffering. There is absolutely no reason why people who can organise a mass protest against Bush can organise a similar protest against a man who is responsible for Cheychnya. None. Except of course, principles are not guiding their philosophy. Why arent they equally applying their philosphy and principles to all cases when there is no cost to them, from case to case?

Whose the greater hypocrit? The group that has to face differing costs to its actions in each case and takes differing actions, or the group which faces the same insignificant cost in each case and apparently exists only to undertake principled action and takes differing actions?

Victor

The comparison with Chechnya is interesting. While one can accuse Putin (and his predecessors) of being opportunistic, both in his politics and in the two Chechnyan wars, in both cases, it was the Chechnyans that triggered the wars - kidnapping hundreds of people from a hospital, blowing up apartment blocks, etc.

---

Flip side is Bush and Blair present themselves as "the good guys" - more than that "the best guys" - when we all know differently. Fair enough take out Saddam Hussein, but take all the other dictators down as well. And why treat democratic and popular presidents like Hugo Chavez like “bad guys”, when clearly the only difference is social ideology (shock horror, south American, ex-military president is a socialist)?

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
I think its a good criticism - its obvious now that public opinion doesnt guide the protests, they happily march against it.

I think it's quite obvious that public opinion was behind the anti-war protests both before and after as well as seeing Bush as a threat to world peace.

Its also clear that principle doesnt guide the protests, unless of course the "anti-war, not in my name , what about the children, what about the children" lads approve of the Chechyen conflict - feel that its all above board , that whilst Russian and Cheychen forces engage in an orgy of violence against civillians thats not worth getting the hundreds of thousands out to protest to Putin about - and seeing as Putins country likes its foreign aid such protests might actually make a bloody difference there.

If you are then so much more pricipalled than the anti-war, anti-Bush ilk then when have you gotten off your ass and protested Putin?

Stick an american flag on it though and youll get your mass protests. Or maybe the organisers of the stop-the-war protests still have a soft spot for their former idealogical utopia, cant bring themselves to go against Russia. Its hard not to be cynical about the self-righteous.

Who's being self righteous here?
It's kinda obvious you don't really comprehend the criticism or stated reasons given for protests.

And these are the morally superiour, holier than thou crowd. I mean everyone knows the US and UK governments are full of rotten, evil imperialist bastards - sadly enough we expect that, its a given. But I had expected some principles to be guiding the anti-war movement - I had hoped they were the "good guys" out there fighting for the little man.

Actually from my POV and being raised in the US it was the Soviets that were the "baddies" and we were the "exporters of democracy and freedom" since we "help everyone in the world and give them money without expecting anything back except a little respect which we rarely receive".

Not really - The invasion of Iraq has a real cost in terms of human lives, and human suffering. So would the invasion of North Korea.

You seem to be missing the point in regards N. Korea completely.

In Iraq, the cost is relatively low, the war was won qucikly and easily - the benefit of the new Iraq will outweigh the costs.

Relative to what exactly? Furthermore your suggesting that the Iraq war was principled and therefore Bush's motivations (or rather the ones behind his regime) were principled and Putin's weren't . But I guess you aren't trying to take away from the formers actions with a statement like that.

The cost of attacking North korea would be immense - nuclear war is nearly certain,

No sh1t.

But whats the cost of getting a protest out there - nothing. No one dies, there is no serious increase in human suffering. There is absolutely no reason why people who can organise a mass protest against Bush can organise a similar protest against a man who is responsible for Cheychnya. None. Except of course, principles are not guiding their philosophy. Why arent they equally applying their philosphy and principles to all cases when there is no cost to them, from case to case?

And what is the cost to you if the plight of the Chechnyains is so close to your heart?

Whose the greater hypocrit?

Thats a good question.

The group that has to face differing costs to its actions in each case and takes differing actions, or the group which faces the same insignificant cost in each case and apparently exists only to undertake principled action and takes differing actions?

Please describe to me the high costs to Bush and his regime other than possible denial of a re-election in 2004, despite Cheney and friends making billions off the deal.

If you are then so much more pricipalled than the anti-war, anti-Bush ilk then when have you gotten off your ass and protested Putin?

sovtek, you don't know whether Sand has or not so thats not a valid criticism.
But we do know, those that were out last week in London weren't out protesting Putins visit.

It's kinda obvious you don't really comprehend the criticism or stated reasons given for protests.

I think the point being made here is independent of whether one agrees or disagrees with the U.S actions in Iraq.
The point is: are those protesters making a decision as to who are more important, the people of Iraq or the people of Chechnya?
And whose record is worse Putin or Bush?

Thats the impression I've got, and I am not a Bush fan.

mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
and seeing as Putins country likes its foreign aid such protests might actually make a bloody difference there.

Why? If the people can't get the western nations to listen to public opinion on their own actions, why would they listen to the public opinion on their support of other people who's actions the public disagree with?

Ask your self this....if you saw two kids behaving badly. One was a life-long trouble-maker, who has always shown a disrespect to authority etc. etc. etc. and the other is one who insists he's a good guy, does some good stuff, but when he thinks he can get away with it hits a bit below the belt.

Who are you more likely to try and get to stop with the "badness"?

Now, lets assume that the semi-good-guy is a relation of yours from a nice part of town(because we are societally and - I would suggest - culturally closer to the US after all), while the other was some relative stranger from a known trouble-spot.

Now who do you put your efforts against?

If you want to look at it a different way...why did people call for a boycott on Nike to highlight sweatshop abuse? Why not against "every major running-shoe manufacturer"? Because they knew that concerted pressure on one single focus - the market leader - was more likely to bring results, and that if the market leader toed the line (in order to save its market position, etc. etc. etc. then the rest of them would do so as well, because if Nike could be brought to heel, who couldn't.

If the world is to become a better place, we need the good guys to stop being "better than the worst of the bad guys", and rather become "good guys". Then there's a chance of getting somewhere. Wanting all the bad guys to become "sligtly less bad" is a waste of effort...especially when these guys can just point fingers at our so-called models of respectability and laugh at what we are holding up as "what you should be".

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
its obvious now that public opinion doesnt guide the protests, they happily march against it.

You seem to be confused. Just because a particular cause features the biggest political demonstration ever seen in the UK does not mean that public opinion is it's raison d'etre. The principles of the anti-war case brought over a million people out on the streets, but just because some of those may have changed their mind it doesn't mean that the rest will abandon the cause itself. Again, I can't help but feeling that you'd prefer the minority didn't express their views when they don't agree with yours.

Anyway, by your logic the complete lack of people marching up and down the streets of London calling for the US to overthrow Saddam as soon as possible meant that nobody supported it. This is obviously untrue - some people supported the pro-war case before it started, though they were in the minority. Similarly, if there were any crowds out to greet Bush in London last week, there certainly weren't many. Surely if people felt that strongly about supporting him, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops?

You present the choice to protest as costless, but life isn't like that or else everyone would be out protesting about every last thing that bothered them. People have opinions and express them in all sorts of ways, and marches are the exception to the rule. There is also a snowball effect in protest movements, as people are generally less enthusiastic about being seen to be in the minority. You can call this unprincipled, callous etc. Really it's human nature - people don't usually march, but they'll weigh up an issue and if it looks like they can make a difference about something they'll be a lot more up for it.

So while it may be depressing that people didn't turn out in their thousands to protest agains the actions of Putin in Chechnya, it's not surprising. The Iraq war was deliberately made by Blair and Bush into THE political issue of late 2002 and 2003 in a battle to win over world opinion that they comprehensively lost, instead galvanising the biggest worldwide protest movement ever seen. Putin has made no secret of the fact that world public opinion means sod all to him, but the worldwide protest against the Iraq war directly contributed to the failure to get a Security Council resolution allowing it. Of course, Bush and Blair simply changed tack and decided they didn't need a new resolution after all.

Other reasons are that the US is the world's only superpower - how it chooses to act has bigger ramifications than what Russia does in Chechnya, no matter how bloody. And as we have seen, it's harder to take a position on the rights and wrongs of a war once its already started - and Russia didn't do us the courtesy of telling us months in advance what it was going to do, nor has it allowed much media coverage of what has been called the 'invisible war'.

Overall, I find it amusing that you're dismissing the largest political protest ever seen in Britain because every other protest isn't as big.

sovtek

Originally posted by Man
sovtek, you don't know whether Sand has or not so thats not a valid criticism.

True I don't know that for sure, but his previous posts on protestors leads me to believe he hasn't.
I believe that he can probably answer that himself though.

But we do know, those that were out last week in London weren't out protesting Putins visit.

And who's to say that some of those people haven't done things to try and persuade Putin to cease human rights abuses in Chechnya.
I happen to know that Humans Rights Watch have come out against Putin and virtually no one escapes criticism with Amnesty International.

The point is: are those protesters making a decision as to who are more important, the people of Iraq or the people of Chechnya?

I believe that's known as a logical fallacy.

And whose record is worse Putin or Bush?

Thats debatable and not really the point. Whose country has the most power and more likely to cause international instability.

Thats the impression I've got, and I am not a Bush fan.

And I'm not a Putin fan either but then I don't pay taxes or have a right to vote in Russia.
Once I do my part to change things in America, I'll be quite happy to start doing what I can to pressure world leaders.

Originally posted by sovtek

And who's to say that some of those people haven't done things to try and persuade Putin to cease human rights abuses in Chechnya.
I happen to know that Humans Rights Watch have come out against Putin and virtually no one escapes criticism with Amnesty International.

Well he either deserves the same reception in the UK as Bush or he does not and apparently he does not as there weren't any mass protests.

and whose record is worse Putin or Bush?
Thats debatable and not really the point.

Why is it not the point?
They were both on state visits and being entertained officially at the U.K tax payers expense so presumably at the protesters expense also.
Why should ones misdeeds be regarded as less important to protest about than the other?
I just don't get it and you're not enlightening me.

mm

Sand

I think it's quite obvious that public opinion was behind the anti-war protests both before and after as well as seeing Bush as a threat to world peace.

But it isnt behind their point of view now according to the polls taken regarding Bush and his visit. Only a third shared their wish that Bush not come to Britain.

If you are then so much more pricipalled than the anti-war, anti-Bush ilk then when have you gotten off your ass and protested Putin?

Im not claiming to be more principled then the anti-war movement - whether Im out standing in front of coulmns of tanks shouting "set my people free" doesnt have any bearing on the lack of principles shown by the anti-war movement who exist solely to demand principled behaviour from political leaders - no one disagreed with my summary of the anti-war movements apparent principles. Shot I think said that principle was the main force behind the protests, that the polls were merely an important factor.

Im asking if principle is the guiding factor then why is it applied so unevenly? Take away the dementia surrounding Bush and hes at least equivalent to Putin in his crimes against peace and humanity. If principle was the guiding factor, why werent the crowds out for Putin?

Who's being self righteous here?
It's kinda obvious you don't really comprehend the criticism or stated reasons given for protests.

Yes, youre right - I dont. I dont understand how you can reconcile their stated principles with their actions. Are they against all war crimes and crimes against peace or just those committed by the U.S? Id imagine theyd claim theyre against all, but then why werent they out against Putin? Youre right, I dont understand at all.

Why? If the people can't get the western nations to listen to public opinion on their own actions, why would they listen to the public opinion on their support of other people who's actions the public disagree with?

Because politicians are shameless hypocrites?

If you want an example, good ol George Bush was doing a TV interview where he criticised the Russians in Chechnya and said he didnt think US aid should be going to the Russians when they were engaged in such activities.

3 years later......

If public protest reached such a level that politicians had to start justifiying why they were providing aid to the Russians when they were involved in that dirty little war of theres, where their troops didnt even bother with an attempt to retain any shred of humanity ( and the guerillas are as bad - there are no good guys there ) then theres a chance the aid will be cut, or at least seriously reconsidered - and the Russians would then have to take a serious look at either their decision to retain Chechnya, or at the very least bring under control their army operating down there - which appears to have a free hand by and large.

On the other hand, protest against the US is by and large ineffective - there are too many cultural and economic links/dependancies for any serious "cold war" with the U.S. The french tried to have a go over Iraq and the resulting US sentiment led to sectors of the french economy being seriously hurt - the US didnt do better out of it either, but it just shows that serious conflict is unwise for both sides. So theres no real leverage there to try and "persuade" a course of action.

When there is leverage why is it not being exploited? Surely itll have more effect than gathering on a campus shouting "Down with the sort of thing". Or am I being too practical?

Surely if people felt that strongly about supporting him, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops?

Do you not remember the highly successful stay at home protests in support of the war which dwarfed the anti-war protest?

As I said before, public opinion is not a major factor in my views or my case supporting my views. It was ( not anymore) an important factor according to you in the anti-war movements case.

You present the choice to protest as costless, but life isn't like that or else everyone would be out protesting about every last thing that bothered them.

Youre comparing the war crimes in Chechnya to what now? RTEs television liscence?

Of course I wouldnt credit you with meaning that but its a moot point - Putin is at least as guilty as Bush of crimes against humanity/peace/SWP - were not comparing two different crimes here.

So while it may be depressing that people didn't turn out in their thousands to protest agains the actions of Putin in Chechnya, it's not surprising. The Iraq war was deliberately made by Blair and Bush into THE political issue of late 2002 and 2003 in a battle to win over world opinion that they comprehensively lost, instead galvanising the biggest worldwide protest movement ever seen. Putin has made no secret of the fact that world public opinion means sod all to him, but the worldwide protest against the Iraq war directly contributed to the failure to get a Security Council resolution allowing it. Of course, Bush and Blair simply changed tack and decided they didn't need a new resolution after all.

But then havent Bush and Blair made it clear as well how much public opinion means to them? The war went ahead anyway didnt it? The protests in the end didnt make any real difference? And as I said before Putin will care about world public opinion if it starts to make the worlds politicians uneasy about bankrolling Russia.

Other reasons are that the US is the world's only superpower - how it chooses to act has bigger ramifications than what Russia does in Chechnya, no matter how bloody.

Really? You dont think the Cheychen conflict hasnt led to a real contribution to the seige mentality afflicting fundamentalist muslims? That they and their people are under a genocidal attack by infidels and the supposed civillised West doesnt give a damn? And not even the Western governments which we expect to be cynical but the Western protestors as well - theyll come out for Bush, but not for Chechnya?

Personally I consider Chechnya to be like Afghanistan, another Soviet adventure which no doubt seemed minor and relatively unimportant at the time, compared to what the US was doing in say - central america - but led to a real shift in world politics.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand

Im asking if principle is the guiding factor then why is it applied so unevenly? Take away the dementia surrounding Bush and hes at least equivalent to Putin in his crimes against peace and humanity. If principle was the guiding factor, why werent the crowds out for Putin?

Nobody I know was against the war because it was popular to do so. They were against the war because the government seemed unwilling or unable to give a satisfactory answer to the many sensible questions being asked, such as: Why can't you back up any of your claims about WMD in Iraq? Where's the evidence of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda? Why can't we give more time to the weapons inspectors? Why is war your first choice? What are your plans for the aftermath? And so on.

Presumably you've only leapt onto the public opinion issue because these questions are still unanswered, since it was never the main reason for the protests in the first place. But even if the anti-war protestors were in a minority before the war - which they weren't - I don't see how this would make their views 'anti-democratic' as you claim. According to poll you like so much, those who think the war was justified are still in the majority. But I think they're entitled to their view anyway.

I dont understand how you can reconcile their stated principles with their actions. Are they against all war crimes and crimes against peace or just those committed by the U.S? Id imagine theyd claim theyre against all, but then why werent they out against Putin? Youre right, I dont understand at all.

People today tend to be pretty pessimistic about the potential for popularly-driven foreign policy. That's why Iraq was such a gigantic exception - people really thought that if they expressed their opinions politicians would listen. They never really thought that about Russia in Chechnya, as the policy of Bush, Blair and others seemed to consist of saying "careful now" every so often, and the pressure that was brought to bear by many groups didn't seem to make a jot of difference.

Of course, now they're going to be even more cynical about politicians, and it's heartening that so many people are still turning out on the streets to express their views.

As I said before, public opinion is not a major factor in my views or my case supporting my views. It was ( not anymore) an important factor according to you in the anti-war movements case.

See above. If you'll insist on only seeing the motives that suit your point of view at any one time then fine.

Really? You dont think the Cheychen conflict hasnt led to a real contribution to the seige mentality afflicting fundamentalist muslims? That they and their people are under a genocidal attack by infidels and the supposed civillised West doesnt give a damn?

Not as much as Iraq, no, I don't. But I suppose opinions will differ. For example, you think Chechnya is the new Afghanistan while Iraq is just the new Northern Ireland. That's hardly applying your principles evenly, imho.

Redleslie

If there were British troops in Chechnya then there would probably have been larger protests against Putin's visit to Liz. But there aren't. And Russia has not declared the UN to be irrelevant and hasn't unveiled any wacky plan for world domination like the US neocons have.