Not in my name

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
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 I'd been asked if I wanted Bush to come to Britain I'd have said yes because he'll face massive protests and nobody will turn out to support him. Some of those polled may have thought along the same lines.

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

But then anyone who didn't turn out to protest at G8 summits in Evian and Genoa must support Putin's policies in Chechnya. So where were you then? Don't give me that 'I had things to do' rubbish. Either you support Putin and stay at home or else you turn up to protest. That's according to your conveniently simplified view of things anyway.

Victor

Originally posted by Redleslie
Either you support Putin and stay at home or else you turn up to protest.

You are with Putin or against him?

Sand

Nobody I know was against the war because it was popular to do so.

And yet the polls played an important part in the anti-war sides case against the war - As I have said *repeatedly* I am not criticising the anti-war movement for taking action in the face of public opinion - I have stated *repeatedly* that public opinion plays little role in whether I feel my views are correct or not - I dont feel that the anti-war movement should look to the polls to decide how right or wrong they are either.

As I have stated *repeatedly* my amusement is with the fact that the anti-war movment have painted Blair and bush as dictators for ignoring the polls, when the polls favoured their opinion - now that the polls do not favour their opinion, by their own logic they are just as much anti-democratic as Blair and Bush were/are. That is where their discomfort lies - either they were initially wrong to paint blair and Bush as dictators, or they are anti-democratic themselves.

Now, whilst you have *repreatedly* attempted to avoid that issue Im still sticking to it - you can waste both of our times trying to lead the thread off into a topic you feel more comftable discussing, such as your belief that I wish to oppress the anti-war movement which is false - its funnier when they try to talk their way out of the corner theyve talked themselves into afterall. Or you can confront that paradox of the anti-war movements strategy. Or you can simply skip past this and ignore it.

All the same to me. The point is made.

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.

Actually it confirms my cyncism about their views - theyre still turning out despite the ineffectiveness of their protests, despite exscuses that protests against Putin would be ineffective.

So whats motivating them?

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.

Well, the worst the coalition forces are accused of is invading a country without the UNs say so - and even then the americans claim they had the right under previous UN resolutions - if theyre wrong why havent they been brought to trial in some international court for war crimes? The worst they face are attacks by groups that are described as resistance when they attack the coalition forces and terrorists when they attack the UN or the Red Cross despite the fact they are almost certainly under the same flag of convenience.

The system is never wrong is it? Especially about Iraq?

Whereas the Russians regularly dissapear, execute, torture and rape civillians and have levelled Grozny - leaving it a shell of its former self. But I guess theyre not flying the stars and strip[es when they do it so its not newsworthy. And lets not forget the Russians are one of the moral judges of the coalition activities in Iraq, being a permament member of the UNSC - what other system do you know of makes one of its worst crinimals a judge and still retains any moral authority? Lets get Charlie Haughey running the tribunals investigating corruption in the 70s and 80s shall we?

Comparing Chechnya to Iraq? The Russian Mothers association have estimated the Russians are losing up to 50 men a day in that conflict last I heard, 12000 dead since the war last sprang up - a catastrophe is being declared because the americans have lost a bit over 100 inside 6 months in Iraq, and as yet no gang rapes or mass graves of Iraqi civillians.

You tell me which is more comparable to Northern Ireland, relative to Afghanistan?

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.

No, they just make it irrelevant by their and the UNs hypocrisy.

If I'd been asked if I wanted Bush to come to Britain I'd have said yes because he'll face massive protests and nobody will turn out to support him. Some of those polled may have thought along the same lines.

Easily reversed - tons of the no voters could have said no simply cause they didnt want the hassle of london being shutdown or didnt want their hero bill being abused by raggedy students.

Oh yeah - you disagree with that, but I should agree with your view? Stick to the facts.

But then anyone who didn't turn out to protest at G8 summits in Evian and Genoa must support Putin's policies in Chechnya. So where were you then? Don't give me that 'I had things to do' rubbish. Either you support Putin and stay at home or else you turn up to protest. That's according to your conveniently simplified view of things anyway.

Again - has absolutely nothing to do with me - Im not discussing my principles which clearly differ from the exspressed views of the anti-war movement as I supported the liberation of Iraq. Either the anti-war movement are against all violent solutions or they are not - if they are , why werent they out in London against Putin?

That is the question. Again, stop wasting my time and yours trying to dodge it. The anti-war movment has no obligation or strategic requirment beyond making a principled stance against what it belives to be wrong - now either it belives Chechnya to be relatively okay, not worthy of mass protests - or it is not principled.

Keep on trying to dodge that - its just confirms the truth as I see it. Youre not able to make a case based on the antiwar movements principles as they have none. The coalition may not have either- but theyre pure demonic evil remember, the anti-war movement are the good guys. They by definition have to have principles.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
And yet the polls played an important part in the anti-war sides case against the war

But not nearly as important a part as the questions I listed above, none of which the Coalition was or is able to answer. But you've ignored them, and choose to harp on about how public opinion has shifted somwhat in favour of the national armed forces engaged in warfare in a foreign country, which is hardly surprising.

As I have said *repeatedly* I am not criticising the anti-war movement for taking action in the face of public opinion

And I have pointed out *repeatedly* that you only seem concerned with public opinion when it suits you, which is exactly what you accuse anti-war protestors of, and which is exactly typical of your favoured brand of 'democracy', ie lie first, cover-up later.

As I have stated *repeatedly* my amusement is with the fact that the anti-war movment have painted Blair and bush as dictators for ignoring the polls, when the polls favoured their opinion - now that the polls do not favour their opinion, by their own logic they are just as much anti-democratic as Blair and Bush were/are.

During the run-up to the war, anti-war protestors pointed out that the majority supported their view. Now that it apparently doesn't, ie now that many people have swung into "it's a foregone conclusion, let's support the troops" mode, they don't make this claim. I haven't seen anyone try to hush up the results of this or any other poll. So how is this hypocritical? Seems perfectly straightforward to me. Again, I must *repeat* that you are using recent developments to retrospectively condemn anti-war people for taking a position that was both entirely justified and popularly supported at the time.

That is where their discomfort lies - either they were initially wrong to paint blair and Bush as dictators, or they are anti-democratic themselves.

Totally illogical. How can one be retrospectively anti-democratic when one was in the majority at the time?

Or you can confront that paradox of the anti-war movements strategy. Or you can simply skip past this and ignore it.

All the same to me. The point is made.

I've given reasons why Chechnya hasn't provoked the same level of street protests, just like nothing else has ever provoked the same level of protests. Sorry if it doesn't fit in with your black or white, 'with us or against us' point of view. Fundamentalist is as fundamentalist does, I suppose.

The worst they face are attacks by groups that are described as resistance when they attack the coalition forces and terrorists when they attack the UN or the Red Cross despite the fact they are almost certainly under the same flag of convenience.

You're saying that we should not distinguish between attacks on military forces and attacks on civilians? Interesting. So attacks on American military forces should be construed as terrorism, but obviously no attacks by American military forces can ever be terrorism?

Yes, I think we should distinguish between attacks based on the target. Obviously we should.

And lets not forget the Russians are one of the moral judges of the coalition activities in Iraq, being a permament member of the UNSC - what other system do you know of makes one of its worst crinimals a judge and still retains any moral authority? Lets get Charlie Haughey running the tribunals investigating corruption in the 70s and 80s shall we?

Every single permanent member on the Security Council has a pretty poor record, and the whole arrangement is clearly a glaring anachronism, and one I believe to be in contradiction to the original spirit of the UN. But is it better than a world in which the reigning superpower is free to subjugate any country it feels like on a whim, regardless of world opinion? Yes, I believe it is. As long as the US, or the USSR, or China or whoever is still pushing for a free role in world affairs for itself and itself alone there has to be some check placed upon it.

Comparing Chechnya to Iraq? The Russian Mothers association have estimated the Russians are losing up to 50 men a day in that conflict last I heard, 12000 dead since the war last sprang up - a catastrophe is being declared because the americans have lost a bit over 100 inside 6 months in Iraq, and as yet no gang rapes or mass graves of Iraqi civillians.

You're a bit off with your facts again. The US alone have lost 111 people in 'hostile' deaths since Sept 11 2003, 184 since Baghdad fell in April and 254 since war began.

You tell me which is more comparable to Northern Ireland, relative to Afghanistan?

Well, Iraq is by the coalition's own admission attracting lots of jihadis and foreign terrorists, which I don't remember happening in Northern Ireland, mostly a local conflict with little geopolitical significance. Afghanistan, remember, took quite some time to come to the boil, but Iraq is bubbling over after only a few months. And I wasn't saying that Chechnya was insignificant, just that Iraq was far, far more significant in regional and world terms than Northern Ireland.

Either the anti-war movement are against all violent solutions or they are not - if they are , why werent they out in London against Putin?

So someon is either for all violent solutions or against them? Really? So if the Russians had unilaterally decided that they felt like invading Iraq, or not even Iraq, how about Israel or Turkey, you would have been fine with that, because it's just "a violent solution" just like Iraq? Either you're mad or you're employing double standards again.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
As I have stated *repeatedly* my amusement is with the fact that the anti-war movment have painted Blair and bush as dictators for ignoring the polls, when the polls favoured their opinion - now that the polls do not favour their opinion, by their own logic they are just as much anti-democratic as Blair and Bush were/are. That is where their discomfort lies - either they were initially wrong to paint blair and Bush as dictators, or they are anti-democratic themselves.

Thats funny, because I could have sworn there was nothing undemocratic about a minority group campaigning for what they believe in, whereas there is potentially (at least) something undemocratic about the elected leaders wilfully ignoring the wishes of the majority of the nation.

But if you want to see the two as identical, thats your perogative....get your chuckles whatever way you want.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Comparing Chechnya to Iraq? The Russian Mothers association have estimated the Russians are losing up to 50 men a day in that conflict last I heard, 12000 dead since the war last sprang up

Chechnya has been going on for a lot more tha 240 days (12000/50).

Originally posted by Sand
and as yet no gang rapes or mass graves of Iraqi civillians.

Actually the lack of authority in Iraq has caused gang rape to become the norm. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1138514#post1138514

sovtek

Originally posted by Victor
Chechnya has been going on for a lot more tha 240 days (12000/50). Actually the lack of authority in Iraq has caused gang rape to become the norm. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1138514#post1138514

And I remember seeing an Israeli aid worker helping to bury Iraqi civilians in a mass grave on the side of the highway that leads into Baghdad (as well calling Bush and Rumsfled a$$holes while he was digging).

Originally posted by Victor
Chechnya has been going on for a lot more tha 240 days (12000/50). Actually the lack of authority in Iraq has caused gang rape to become the norm. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1138514#post1138514

To be fair to Sand, I think he may have been talking about gang rapes not being the norm by coalition forces.

Although the Chechyen fighters are bad people to put it mildly ( in the same way you can describe Al Queda/Sadams remenants as bad people for attacking the red cross, shia clerics and the un etc in Iraq ) Russian forces acting on behalf of a country who have a permanernt seat at the UNSC have been accused of many uncivilised activities, and I quote from the human rights watch link I provided earlier:

For more than three years, Russian forces in Chechnya have committed extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture, rape, and looting without being held accountable for their actions. These are violations of Russian’s obligations under the Article 3 Common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which applies during internal armed conflicts.

mm

sovtek

Originally posted by Man
To be fair to Sand, I think he may have been talking about gang rapes not being the norm by coalition forces.

Although the Chechyen fighters are bad people to put it mildly ( in the same way you can describe Al Queda/Sadams remenants as bad people for attacking the red cross, shia clerics and the un etc in Iraq ) Russian forces acting on behalf of a country who have a permanernt seat at the UNSC have been accused of many uncivilised activities, and I quote from the human rights watch link I provided earlier:

mm

And if things continue to go as they do in Iraq , we might be hearing of these same atrocities being carried out by soldiers that represent a permanent member of the Security Council, in a few years time.
Should the UN sanction America and Russia...definitely
Of course any resolution would obviously be vetoed by the respective permanent members...hence a weakness in the UN. Change it to make it stronger rather than call it irrelavant.

Sand

And I have pointed out *repeatedly* that you only seem concerned with public opinion when it suits you, which is exactly what you accuse anti-war protestors of, and which is exactly typical of your favoured brand of 'democracy', ie lie first, cover-up later.

But Im not concerned with public opinion here - Im not saying "oooh the polls agree with the war, see we were right all along ooooh". Read that a few times. Understand it. That was the anti-war movements mistake. That was *their* ( as in not mine, then or now ) position - that the polls were an important factor in their argument. Theirs, not mine. As in nothing to do with me. I claim no responsibility for the attempts to paint Blair and Bush as dictators because the polls - which we all know are extremely variable - disagreed with blairs and Bushs position then.

Where the hell is that argument now when the polls are in favour of Blair and Bush?Surely, if Blair and Bush were anti-democrats then now the Anti-war movement is to by *their* own logic - *not* mine, *theirs*.

During the run-up to the war, anti-war protestors pointed out that the majority supported their view. Now that it apparently doesn't, ie now that many people have swung into "it's a foregone conclusion, let's support the troops" mode, they don't make this claim. I haven't seen anyone try to hush up the results of this or any other poll. So how is this hypocritical?

Ill let you figure that one out for yourself.

Totally illogical. How can one be retrospectively anti-democratic when one was in the majority at the time?

Because having harped on about the need to listen to the polls - to do otherwise was anti-democratic, one is now ignoring the polls.

I've given reasons why Chechnya hasn't provoked the same level of street protests

Yeah so have I. Regardless it demonstrates that the anti-war movements actions are not based on some sacred principles such as say, peaceful solutions and human rights - hype, and public hysteria might whip the masses up but not war crimes.

You're saying that we should not distinguish between attacks on military forces and attacks on civilians? Interesting. So attacks on American military forces should be construed as terrorism, but obviously no attacks by American military forces can ever be terrorism?

Yes, I think we should distinguish between attacks based on the target. Obviously we should.

We should open a new thread on this if you want to discuss it in detail. You could start with applying your classification techniques to the IRA maybe?

Every single permanent member on the Security Council has a pretty poor record

And yet they are your moral compass on the intervention in Iraq. Hell lets be honest, the permament members are actually fairly decent compared to a lot of the General assembly members? If were going to start being serious about standards in the whole UN were going to end up with more inmates than we have jailors.

And I wasn't saying that Chechnya was insignificant, just that Iraq was far, far more significant in regional and world terms than Northern Ireland.

I heard on the radio today that the Turkish police reckon now that the Istanbul bombers were either Chechens or connected to Chechen groups.

So someon is either for all violent solutions or against them? Really? So if the Russians had unilaterally decided that they felt like invading Iraq, or not even Iraq, how about Israel or Turkey, you would have been fine with that, because it's just "a violent solution" just like Iraq? Either you're mad or you're employing double standards again.

Oh boy - deep breath, count to ten.

Okay.

Well you see, as should be clear Im constantly referring to the anti-war movements principles, who are apparently only there to exspress their disgust at bushes lack of principles or adherence to UN principles in his dealing with Iraq and so on.

Now if the anti-war movement are going to take the moral high ground and preach about principled action they better be damn sure theyre pretty fecking principled themselves - this is a common moan about the US, and its two facedness. Sovtek touched on this.

So, no - this has absolutely shagging nothing to do with my principles, which are not the ones exspressed by the peace activists - it has to do with the anti-war movements lack of principles, hypocrisy, variable respect for polled opinion and sheer puzzlement at what motivates them to get out for Bush but not Putin despite the fact theyre breaking the same principles the movement claims to cherish - oh thats right , hypocrisy again.

Stop trying to drag it off-topic. It aint gonna work. Either deal with the question, or save us both some time and dont post. Eithers fine with me - Ive made my point.

Thats funny, because I could have sworn there was nothing undemocratic about a minority group campaigning for what they believe in, whereas there is potentially (at least) something undemocratic about the elected leaders wilfully ignoring the wishes of the majority of the nation.

No there is absolutely nothing undemocratic about a group campaigning for what they belive in the face of public disagreement as exspressed in polls. I never said their was. Im attacking the hypocrisy of the anti-war movement for calling Bush and Blair anti-democratic because they acted against public disagreement - and now suddenly its okay for them to do the exact same thing. You cant have your cake and eat it.

And whilst it is anti-democratic for leaders to ignore the wishes of the majority of the nation that is exspressed most accurately in free elections and referedumns, not polls. Which as you said yourself - i think - can be manipulated to give any result you want depending on how the question is phrased or introduced.

Chechnya has been going on for a lot more tha 240 days (12000/50).

up to 50 men a day Victor:)

Heres some links to keep you happy - well as happy as the reading can make you...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/06/22/world/main208718.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/616663.stm

http://vn.vladnews.ru/Arch/2000/ISS208/text/news4.html

http://russia.jamestown.org/pubs/view/chw_004_030_011.htm

The first few are fairly old, and include the estimate of up to 50 men a day, and casualty deaths of 3000 -5000 by 1998/2000. The last one is the newest source i found using google, estimates up to 12,000 dead now - It could be lower, or higher as the Russians are apparently the least reliable sources for bodycounts.

To be fair to Sand, I think he may have been talking about gang rapes not being the norm by coalition forces.

Yep. In fact Ive not heard of any at all - doesnt mean they havent happened, but if they are even half as common as the russian "activities" in Chechnya then why arent they all over the news and internet?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Ill let you figure that one out for yourself.

I've already got it figured out, but apparently you don't, so I'll make it simpler.

The anti-war protestors did not say "we are right because public opinion supports us" and "Tony Blair is wrong because public opinion is against him". They said "we are right and public opinion supports us" and "Tony Blair is wrong and public opinion is against him". If public opinion has changed since then, they were still correct to say what they did at the time but may now have to console themselves with simply being right.

That's as simple as I can make it. You've wilfully ignored it so far, just as most war cheerleaders wilfully ignored all the serious questions that Bush and Blair failed to answer and the lies they relied upon. This entire thread is just another case of a war cheerleader trying to move the goalposts again, because they keep losing the substantive arguments.

Now, about Chechnya, another dumbed-down version for you: Just because people aren't out marching in the streets about Chechnya doesn't mean they support what's going on there.

Oh boy - deep breath, count to ten.

The point was that being against Bush and Blair's policy in Iraq does not automotically make you against all violent solutions of any kind.

Ping Chow Chi

I was/am against the war - I do not think that America is evil, or that now we are in there that we should leave before things are improved.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
No there is absolutely nothing undemocratic about a group campaigning for what they belive in the face of public disagreement as exspressed in polls. I never said their was.

Ok...so what exactly was this next quote about ???

by their own logic they are just as much anti-democratic as Blair and Bush were/are

I see the word undemocratic being applied to the groups for saying (i.e. campaigning) that Bush and Blair should do what they want, despite now being in the minority.

But you never said that...

Im attacking the hypocrisy of the anti-war movement for calling Bush and Blair anti-democratic because they acted against public disagreement - and now suddenly its okay for them to do the exact same thing.

There is nothing hypocritical. For it to be hypocritical, they would have to be acting undemocratically themselves....which you just agreed they weren't doing.....

Make up your mind...either the public are acting undemocratically, or they are not. If they are not, then where is the hypocracy? If they are, then please explain how...because - as you just agreed - there is nothing undemocratic about the public campaigning, so I can't see where there is any hypocracy.

You cant have your cake and eat it.

That would appear to be what you are trying to do with the above quotes, Sand......

The anti-war public are not undemocratic, only they are.

They're not anti-democratic, only they are.

And they're obviously not principled because they don't treat every situation you can dream up with exactly the same actions, despite principles not being the same as actions.

And lets not even go into the fact that you're construing different people having different reasons as meaning that the "movement" (as you see it) is "confused" in its reasoning...


jc

chill

This is the difference between a politician and a Leader.

Bush is a toad that I cannot stand, but I am delighted that he went in to Afghanistan and Iraq and liberated 35+ million people and fought the terrorists where they live. Our world is a lot safer as a result.

Blair showed he is a Leader and not a fickle poll merchant. He has no political comradery with Bush but he knew what had to be done and he did it irrespective of how many indifferent appeasers of Saddam marched down whitehall. He knew that evil must be confronted and not deferred to and he knew that the best place to fight the terrorists was over there and not at home.

The embarrassing spectacle of hundreds of thousands of pathetic people marching against Bush's visit was in stark contract to the >600,000 mass graves found in Iraq to date and the millions of those tortured and raped over the time of his rule.

sovtek

Originally posted by chill
This is the difference between a politician and a Leader.

What then is the difference between a dictator and a leader?

Bush is a toad that I cannot stand, but I am delighted that he went in to Afghanistan and Iraq and liberated 35+ million people and fought the terrorists where they live. Our world is a lot safer as a result.

Our world is safer is it? Tell that to the people in Turkey, Iraq, Bali,Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Israel...etc.
I love the loose term "liberated" in reference to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Where is Saddam? Where is Bin Laden?
Afghanistan is run largely by warlords and the Taliban is still there. They still haven't showed up with all the money they promised to rebuild. The handpicked interim government is led by a former consultant to UNOCAL. They only control the capital. British and American troops are still there, still dying and still killing. But Hey! Unocal did get their pipeline.
I'm assuming that when you say "they fought the terrorists where they live" you are only refering to Afghanistan.
Iraq....all state assets were opened up to for sale (except for the oil of course) immediately without one Iraqi having a say about it. The governing council is handpicked by the US (of which Chalabi is a member, even though they said he wouldn't be involved in a new Iraqi government).
The CPA has shut down several Iraqi media groups not to mention foreign media as well, like Al-Jeezera and Al-Arabyia (spelling). Iraqi's have been arrested for "making anti-coalition" statements. Soldiers carry out house to house searches arresting "terrorists" often without any real evidence. Families that try to find out the fate of detained Iraqi's are often scorned or ignored.
Checkpoints everywhere and often enough the soldiers manning them kill innocent civilians (average 5-15 per day last I heard).
Bulldozing of orchards and property if Iraqi's don't tell the soldiers where the resistance are given refuge (a tactic that worked well in Vietnam and Israel).

Blair showed he is a Leader and not a fickle poll merchant. He has no political comradery with Bush but he knew what had to be done and he did it irrespective of how many indifferent appeasers of Saddam marched down whitehall.

Blair has been paid so well by Bush for his allegiance, against the majority of his people and the world.
He can't get concessions on steel tariffs or the illegal detention of several of his own citizens.
What a leader....

He knew that evil must be confronted and not deferred to and he knew that the best place to fight the terrorists was over there and not at home.

He he those evil terrorists that "we" armed and trained in the 80's. Again, I assume you are limiting that statement to Afghanistan.

The embarrassing spectacle of hundreds of thousands of pathetic people marching against Bush's visit was in stark contract to the >600,000 mass graves found in Iraq to date and the millions of those tortured and raped over the time of his rule.

A further embarrasing spectacle is when ol' Rummy went over and buddied up to Saddam when he was creating those mass graves (a number of which are actually from the Iran-Iraq War. )
, in order to give him more money and weapons.

Originally posted by sovtek

Our world is safer is it? Tell that to the people in Turkey, Iraq, Bali,Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Israel...etc.

And how do you know that Al Qu'eda or their off shoots and supporters wouldn't have carried out those attacks regardless of who was in the Whitehouse.
After all they were willing to crash planes into populated areas of the U.S before they even knew what Bush was capable of.
And thats notwithstanding the fact that a year or two prior to that, the previous U.S administration had used it's forces to come to the rescue of muslims in Europe.

mm

Sand

The anti-war protestors did not say "we are right because public opinion supports us" and "Tony Blair is wrong because public opinion is against him". They said "we are right and public opinion supports us" and "Tony Blair is wrong and public opinion is against him".

Oh no, what they said was stuff like this.....

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/10/14954.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2765041.stm - Good old celebrity activist Tim Robbins sticks his oar in.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/resources.asp - another dicator gets dethroned

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/Resources/jan2003.pdf - according to stop the war coalition blair doesnt act in the name of his people.

http://www.active.org.au/perth/news/front.php3?article_id=2200&group=webcast

"Howard is not listening to us. Blair is not listening to the people of Britain. Bush is not listening to the American people.......Howard, Bush and Blair are acting like dictators." Thats the hard core opinion - Australians who went to iraq to act as human shields.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/newz-f21.shtml

More from the horses mouth : "Dylan, 18, noted the massive demonstrations occurring around the world and expressed outrage that Bush and Blair would most likely ignore them. “How can they claim to be exporting ‘democracy’ to Iraq when they are acting in the most undemocratic way themselves? Not only is Bush in office by fraud, he and Blair are just ignoring the will of the people. They are the dictators,” "

Now - the stop the war movement is not acting in the interests of the people, the stop the war movement thinks it knows better than what the majority belives. Everything they said about Bush and Blair and how they were dictators now applies to the anti-war movement by the anti-war movements own logic.

If youre not in agreement with the polls, youre a dictator , an anti-democrat.

Now, about Chechnya, another dumbed-down version for you: Just because people aren't out marching in the streets about Chechnya doesn't mean they support what's going on there.

But if the anti-war movement can organise huge protests to show their contempt for war crimes and unilateral milatary action in Iraq why cant they organise huge protests to show their contempt for far greater war crimes in Chechnya?

Because the protests arent based on the claimed principles either?

The point was that being against Bush and Blair's policy in Iraq does not automotically make you against all violent solutions of any kind.

No of course, not all violent solutions are carried out under the US flag for one thing. I refer you to the question above - war crimes as great if not far greater and at least as successful in creating terrorism are occuring in Chechnya. Putin gets full V.I.P. treatment. Bush doesnt. Why? Are the anti-war movement only motivated by their feelings on the crinimal rather than the crime?

I see the word undemocratic being applied to the groups for saying (i.e. campaigning) that Bush and Blair should do what they want, despite now being in the minority.

Of course. Im merely applying the activists logic to their own protests. If Blair and Bush should have listened to the polls, if they were an important factor in the case then surely by the same logic so should the anti-war movement?

I dont hold protest movements as undemocratic - but under their own logic, they are unless the polls agree with them. Thats the amusing thing.

There is nothing hypocritical. For it to be hypocritical, they would have to be acting undemocratically themselves....which you just agreed they weren't doing.....

See above, what I think and the results of their own logic are two different things.

And they're obviously not principled because they don't treat every situation you can dream up with exactly the same actions, despite principles not being the same as actions.

Im not dreaming up some crazy hypothetical "never could happen" situation. Putin *did* visit Britain. He *did* receive full V.I.P. treatment. Chechnya *is* the scene of everything the anti-war movement claims to abhor. There was no protests even *close* to the ones that greeted Bush.

If they can organise huge protests for Bush then why werent they out for Putin? Thats the hypocrisy of their position, what shows up their claims of a principled stance for what it is - a sham.

Ping Chow Chi

You miss out perhaps the biggest difference between Chechnya and Iraq though (at least for the British people) and that is the fact that there are no British troops in Chechnya, IE whats happening there is not happening 'in my name' - the title of the thread points this out quite clearly.

So it is not a like for like comparison.

As for harping on that some of the protestors pointed out that, at the time of Tony Blair sending his troops inyo Iraq, the general public opinion was against it (and there was no vote in the house of commons I think), and because of that they have no right to protest now that the polls are in favour of the war. Well you love to genralise, but even you could see that not every pre-war demonstraitor uttered that it was un-democratic, some people thought it was just plain wrong, so how do you know which protestors are being hypocritical? (by your rules)

Originally posted by Ping Chow Chi
(and there was no vote in the house of commons I think),

Actually there was a vote in the commons, it passed as it had the support of the conservatives but there was a large labour vote against it.

but even you could see that not every pre-war demonstraitor uttered that it was un-democratic, some people thought it was just plain wrong, so how do you know which protestors are being hypocritical? (by your rules)

I'd have thought that all of the anti war protesters thought it was just plain wrong as you put it and that very few of them would not have said it was anti democratic.
At least in my best recollection most of the tv audience discussions, like questions and answers/questiontime/Dimbleby etc around the time of the war would have included anti war people emphasising that the polls showed a majority against the war.

mm

chill

Originally posted by sovtek
What then is the difference between a dictator and a leader?

A dictator rules without the consent of the people. Blair and other democratic leaders are voted in. A dictator rules his people for his benefit not theirs. Democratic leaders administer for the benefit of their voters not themselves. Dictators ignore the rule of law while democratic leaders follow the law and protect their people. Blair has proven himself to be a Leader among politicians and appeasers.

Our world is safer is it? Tell that to the people in Turkey, Iraq, Bali,Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Israel...etc.

The people of Turkey are a lot safer from Saddam now. The people of Iraq are free for the first time in decades, and no longer are thousands of innocent men women and children murdered and tortured and raped each month of each year. The people of Saudi Arabia re happy they will not be the target of Saddams missile program. The people of Bali have supported the war against terror in their wisdom and the people of Palestine are better off without a key player in the worsening middle east conflict with Israel. Winners all around.

I love the loose term "liberated" in reference to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Where is Saddam? Where is Bin Laden?

They are not in power any more. That's all that maters to them. Ask the thousand of people that would have been murdered, tortured and raped since the liberation if they would prefer to go back and sacrifice their lives and bodies to have Saddam back .... are you suggesting they would say yes ?

Afghanistan is run largely by warlords and the Taliban is still there.

The warlords are lot better than the Taliban who are not in power anywhere in Afghanistan.

They still haven't showed up with all the money they promised to rebuild. The handpicked interim government is led by a former consultant to UNOCAL.

That sounds wonderful to me. The country is far better off now. The women of Afghanistan are deleriously happy to be free of the persecution. Is there enough money being offered to them ? no. But that is the fault of all of he rest of the world.

They only control the capital. British and American troops are still there, still dying and still killing. But Hey! Unocal did get their pipeline.
I'm assuming that when you say "they fought the terrorists where they live" you are only refering to Afghanistan.

In summary the country of Afghanistan is far far better off now than before and the rest of the world if far far safer from the Taliban and Al Quida than before. The Allies fought the terrorists where they lived both in Afghanistan and Iraq where they trained.

Iraq....all state assets were opened up to for sale (except for the oil of course) immediately without one Iraqi having a say about it.

How many Iraqis were consulted when they were given to members of Saddam's family ?

The governing council is handpicked by the US (of which Chalabi is a member, even though they said he wouldn't be involved in a new Iraqi government).

An excellent move by the Allies in advance of introducing democracy. If it is your implied suggestion that they should have held elections days after a war with no media, no candidates, no knowledge by the electorate about what democracy is and who they could vote for. that that is a farcical idea that would only have damaged Iraq and it's people.

The CPA has shut down several Iraqi media groups not to mention foreign media as well, like Al-Jeezera and Al-Arabyia (spelling).

No free media have been shut down. There are over a thousand completely uncensored newspapers operating all across Iraq. Al Jezeera is still operating and available in Iraq by satellite and there is nothing the US or UK can do about that.

Iraqi's have been arrested for "making anti-coalition" statements.

Not true.

Soldiers carry out house to house searches arresting "terrorists" often without any real evidence.

Not true. They don't have the time or man power to waste searching houses for no good reason.

Fmilies that try to find out the fate of detained Iraqi's are often scorned or ignored.

Big deal.

Checkpoints everywhere and often enough the soldiers manning them kill innocent civilians (average 5-15 per day last I heard).

Not true yet again.

Bulldozing of orchards and property if Iraqi's don't tell the soldiers where the resistance are given refuge (a tactic that worked well in Vietnam and Israel).

Simply not happening.

Blair has been paid so well by Bush for his allegiance, against the majority of his people and the world.

The vast majority of the world supports the war against Saddam and terror.

He can't get concessions on steel tariffs or the illegal detention of several of his own citizens.
What a leader....

The implication that he should be 'paid' for Leading is a corrupt one that I don't share with you. That may be the way you believe politics and business should be run but I don't.


.

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
The people of Turkey are a lot safer from Saddam now.

Strangely, there isn't a shred of evidence they were ever a threat from him. Now, they appear to be threatened by a group you're insisting the world is much safer from - namely Al Qaeda.

And lets not forget to note that the point was made about how safe they were/are...not how safe they were/are from Saddam Hussein. Or maybe you would like to misconstrue his attack on Kuwait as the first step in a megalomaniacal plan to conquer the entire Middle East despite the lack of evidence to support such a notion?


jc

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
Because the protests arent based on the claimed principles either?

I wish they'd get that dead horse off the road...starting to smell...

No of course, not all violent solutions are carried out under the US flag for one thing. I refer you to the question above - war crimes as great if not far greater and at least as successful in creating terrorism are occuring in Chechnya.

And before world attention was seriously diverted by a "war on terror" people were decrying Putin's actions in respect to Chechnya. Even the US was openly condemning his actions, but now Bush can't say a peep cause he's responsible for the same sh1t.

Putin gets full V.I.P. treatment. Bush doesnt.

Because Bush's security team declined the offer from Lizzy, protestors had nothing to do with it.

Why? Are the anti-war movement only motivated by their feelings on the crinimal rather than the crime?

Not this one.

Of course. Im merely applying the activists logic to their own protests.

You are also picking and choosing which protestor to pay attention to, and therefore which cherry picking logic, when there happen to be millions worldwide.

If Blair and Bush should have listened to the polls, if they were an important factor in the case then surely by the same logic so should the anti-war movement?

Elected leaders are supposed to have a mandate from the people. Obviously they didn't have that mandate and any questions should have been explored. In America that's the reason congress is the only one that can declare war (technically).
Protestors, on the other hand have the luxury of not having to follow a mandate (or right) but only what they perceive to be wrong and making their voice heard.
Actually in America, should the majority of people decide that the government is acting against their wishes we have a right to overthrow that said government. It's called being a citizen.
And in this case anti-war protestors had the support of the majority of the population both before, during and after.

I dont hold protest movements as undemocratic - but under their own logic, they are unless the polls agree with them. Thats the amusing thing.

See above.
Kick that horse some more.

There was no protests even *close* to the ones that greeted Bush.

The Chechnyan campaign is nowhere close to the "war on terror".

If they can organise huge protests for Bush then why werent they out for Putin? Thats the hypocrisy of their position, what shows up their claims of a principled stance for what it is - a sham.

I'd say the sham here is your definition of "their" logic.

sovtek

Originally posted by chill
A dictator rules without the consent of the people. Blair and other democratic leaders are voted in. A dictator rules his people for his benefit not theirs. Democratic leaders administer for the benefit of their voters not themselves. Dictators ignore the rule of law while democratic leaders follow the law and protect their people. Blair has proven himself to be a Leader among politicians and appeasers.


The people of Turkey are a lot safer from Saddam now. The people of Iraq are free for the first time in decades, and no longer are thousands of innocent men women and children murdered and tortured and raped each month of each year. The people of Saudi Arabia re happy they will not be the target of Saddams missile program. The people of Bali have supported the war against terror in their wisdom and the people of Palestine are better off without a key player in the worsening middle east conflict with Israel. Winners all around.


They are not in power any more. That's all that maters to them. Ask the thousand of people that would have been murdered, tortured and raped since the liberation if they would prefer to go back and sacrifice their lives and bodies to have Saddam back .... are you suggesting they would say yes ?


The warlords are lot better than the Taliban who are not in power anywhere in Afghanistan.


That sounds wonderful to me. The country is far better off now. The women of Afghanistan are deleriously happy to be free of the persecution. Is there enough money being offered to them ? no. But that is the fault of all of he rest of the world.


In summary the country of Afghanistan is far far better off now than before and the rest of the world if far far safer from the Taliban and Al Quida than before. The Allies fought the terrorists where they lived both in Afghanistan and Iraq where they trained.


How many Iraqis were consulted when they were given to members of Saddam's family ?


An excellent move by the Allies in advance of introducing democracy. If it is your implied suggestion that they should have held elections days after a war with no media, no candidates, no knowledge by the electorate about what democracy is and who they could vote for. that that is a farcical idea that would only have damaged Iraq and it's people.

No free media have been shut down. There are over a thousand completely uncensored newspapers operating all across Iraq. Al Jezeera is still operating and available in Iraq by satellite and there is nothing the US or UK can do about that.

Not true.

Not true. They don't have the time or man power to waste searching houses for no good reason.

Big deal.

Not true yet again.


Simply not happening.


The vast majority of the world supports the war against Saddam and terror.


The implication that he should be 'paid' for Leading is a corrupt one that I don't share with you. That may be the way you believe politics and business should be run but I don't.


.

So...in a nutshell...your supporting evidence is "not true" and "big deal".

Originally posted by sovtek
So...in a nutshell...your supporting evidence is "not true" and "big deal".

In fairness Sovtek, your previous post in reply to sand was equally as un enlightening:

I wish they'd get that dead horse off the road...starting to smell...

Thats was a sarcastic retort by you to Sands point which avoided discussing it from my what I can see.

mm

sovtek

Originally posted by Man
In fairness Sovtek, your previous post in reply to sand was equally as un enlightening:

In fairness to whom and un enlightening to whom.

Thats was a sarcastic retort by you to Sands point which avoided discussing it from my what I can see.

Yea but assertions are made several times in various fashion, then debunked in kind...how would one classify that.

mr_angry

A dictator rules without the consent of the people.

Debatable whether Blair had the consent of his people or not. So much so, that its being debated (repeatedly) here, and nobody can come up with a conclusive answer.

A dictator rules his people for his benefit not theirs. Democratic leaders administer for the benefit of their voters not themselves.

Again, its debatable which category GWB falls into.

Dictators ignore the rule of law while democratic leaders follow the law and protect their people.

Would International law on Human Rights, POWs, and invading countries without the consent of the UN fall into your definition of "the rule of law"?

the people of Palestine are better off without a key player in the worsening middle east conflict with Israel.

I fail to see how Saddam affected them at all. Would you care to explain?

The women of Afghanistan are deleriously happy to be free of the persecution.

Massive generalisation there. I very much doubt this is universally true. (I disagree that they are free from persecution, rather than how happy they would be).

I could go on, but frankly, I disagree with almost everything you say. You're entitled to your opinion, but I refute the idea that most of the world agrees with you.

Originally posted by sovtek
In fairness to whom and un enlightening to whom.

Well it seemed a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, when you reply to Sands post with an un expanded one liner rather than provide specific reasons to counter his argument ... and then you complain that another poster does the same...
In fairness to the discussion you should enlighten the reader.

your post containing the references to the smell of dead horses seems to completely side step the issue raised, ie the protesters want the government to follow majority public opinion, when it agrees with their opinion yet they won't follow it themselves when it doesn't.
But then they are a lobby group so public opinion being with them is handy but not essential.

Once a majority of public opinion doesn't share their views, to my mind, they have become even more of a lobbying group than a protest group.
Lobbying groups are not anti democratic unless they get their opinions implimented against the wishes of the majority.

A government however and in this instance Tony Blairs government are elected on a mandate to govern irrespective of how unpopular their decisions may be during their term of office.
As we are dealing with a representative democracy here, they can be unseated at the next election if a majority dislike what they have done.

And as regards Chechyna , your replies continue to side step the central difficulty I have with the anti Bush protests the week before last in London.
Where were they when Putin was going up the mall in the Queens carriage??
He deserved a much bigger protest than Bush got at least, given what I've read from human rights watch and elsewhere, why the selectivity??

mm

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
Debatable whether Blair had the consent of his people or not. So much so, that its being debated (repeatedly) here, and nobody can come up with a conclusive answer.

Considerig Mr Blair was elected with a huge majority twice then he indeed has the consent of his people. Democracy does not demand that elected leaders follow the sway of every opinion poll on every issue, thankfully.

Again, its debatable which category GWB falls into.

Where si the doubt ? He took the war to the terrorists and prevented a vicious dictator from arming himself and attacking the US and the western world. In the process 25 million Iraqis were liberated. Sounds like he was looking after his voters pretty well.

Would International law on Human Rights, POWs, and invading countries without the consent of the UN fall into your definition of "the rule of law"?

No international law was broken by the US or the allies. UN laws allow preemptive actions in times of self defense and thankfully action was taken.

I fail to see how Saddam affected them at all. Would you care to explain?

You need to learn more about the fortune poured into the hands of the Palestinian suicide bombers family's hands.

Massive generalisation there. I very much doubt this is universally true. (I disagree that they are free from persecution, rather than how happy they would be).

Then you know little about the brutality they endured, the loss of rights to education, work, freedom to travel etc etc etc.

I could go on, but frankly, I disagree with almost everything you say. You're entitled to your opinion, but I refute the idea that most of the world agrees with you.

I respect your differing opinion. But I have seen no evidence in the last six months that a majority of the world does not support the war against terror and the liberation of Iraq.

Sadly if those opposed to almost everything the US does had their way then Saddam would be in power now and the slaughter would be continuing. It seems that the anti US element in our society has now disposed of all sense of morality and ethics in favour of dogma and jingoistic expediency.

Hobbes

Originally posted by chill
The people of Saudi Arabia re happy they will not be the target of Saddams missile program.

Don't you mean Kuwait? Or prehaps Israel?

the people of Palestine are better off without a key player in the worsening middle east conflict with Israel. Winners all around.

How are they better off? Please elaborate how Palistine now is so much better off before the Iraq war?

Ask the thousand of people that would have been murdered, tortured and raped since the liberation if they would prefer to go back and sacrifice their lives and bodies to have Saddam back

Sure, just point out them out to us will you?

The warlords are lot better than the Taliban who are not in power anywhere in Afghanistan.

Well if you bothered to check up on the history of Afganistan you would of found that the Afgan people welcomed the Taliban into the country because the warlords where even worse then the taliban.

In fact the Northern Alliance (you know the ones the US treated as heros in the fight), make the Taliban look like angels.

The country is far better off now. The women of Afghanistan are deleriously happy to be free of the persecution.

Yes those who live the controlled area by the US. For the rest of Afganistan it is business as usual, except maybe the increased drugs trade which was outlawed under the Taliban.

In summary the country of Afghanistan is far far better off now than before and the rest of the world if far far safer from the Taliban and Al Quida than before.

In summary you appear to be basing your fact on complete fiction. For starters the Taliban were not a terrorist organisation they just didn't want to hand over OBL to the US as they believed he wouldn't get a fair trial. After looking at Camp X-Ray you can well believe them.

Secondly, the taliban up until a few months before 911 were in fact getting funding from the US and also entertaining a major US oil company (who even invited the taliban over to the US to see 'how the Americans do business').

The Allies fought the terrorists where they lived both in Afghanistan and Iraq where they trained.

There has never been any proof that AQ trained in Iraq (except one caught in UN controlled area). Proof otherwise, lets see AQ hatred for Saddam and visa versa and not to mention bushes speech after the war that "Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorists".

An excellent move by the Allies in advance of introducing democracy.

A democracy put in place by the US which offers expensive contracts to US companies which the Iraqi people cannot cancel when they are finally allowed vote someone in.

No free media have been shut down.

Again what are you basing this on? I guess you missed the large number of deaths of foriegn reporters or others being falsely imprisoned or the US locking off areas from reporters. Actually AJ is about the most uncensored non-watered down paper out there and to shut them up the US are claiming they are terrorists.

Not true. They don't have the time or man power to waste searching houses for no good reason.

What papers do you be reading? Try reading Salam Paxs journal ( http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/). He recorded such a raid on his parents house. One of the soliders was even in the process of stealing thier drinks.

Simply not happening.

I guess all those documented news reports on various western papers were all wrong then? Or prehaps even the news reports of Israel giving them bulldozing tips just before the war as a means to get information.

The vast majority of the world supports the war against Saddam and terror.

The majority did not support the war in Iraq.

Democracy does not demand that elected leaders follow the sway of every opinion poll on every issue

Except at election time.

and prevented a vicious dictator from arming himself and attacking the US and the western world.

Yet, there has been absolutly no evidence that was the case, or proof that he was in fact arming himself. You have proof? If so I recommend you tell Bush first.

No international law was broken by the US or the allies. UN laws allow preemptive actions in times of self defense and thankfully action was taken.

UN laws do not allow pre-emptive attacks as a means to self defense. Only the US is currently following that lead. If I am wrong please point out the exact law ok?

As for law broken? IANAL, however I would of thought attacking Iraq without the wish of the UN would be something along those lines.

Saddam would be in power now and the slaughter would be continuing.

What slaughter? Granted Saddam is not a nice person (understatement) but you make it sound like he was killing loads of people daily? Got a link for that?

It seems that the anti US element in our society has now disposed of all sense of morality and ethics in favour of dogma and jingoistic expediency.

Seems the pro-US (or at least one) can only post bull****. Seriously, if you think otherwise please back up your points with facts. Thanks.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
For the rest of Afganistan it is business as usual, except maybe the increased drugs trade which was outlawed under the Taliban.

And lets not forget that this "business as usual" is back under control of the Warlords that the people welcomed the Taliban as a "better thing" in place of.

This is something I find funny....

Chill is constantly telling us that complaining about the wrongs the US is doing is nothing but <insertyour choice of term of insult or ridicule here>. He defends this by telling us that the US should be applauded because it made people's lives better than they were.

And yet, when it comes to the Taliban, we hear nothing but inaccuracies and generalisations, insults and derisions, about a group who made people's lives better than they were. After all, the people welcomed them as an improvement.

So, apparently, when supporting the US, being better than what came before is sufficient to disregard any and all criticisms, but when it comes to the Taliban, its not.

This would then lead to the inevitable conclusion that its not just about being better than what came before...its about being "good enough"- as one would expect. However, by blindly disregarding any criticisms of what the US has done wrong - and continues to do wrong - Chill is effectively portraying the stance (whether he believes in it or not) that "good enough" is synonymous with "whatever the US does".

By claiming otherwise - as I (amongst others) have been known to do - gets you branded as "anti-American". Well gosh...I'm sure Chill wouldn't be insulted at being branded "anti-Taliban" for saying that their standards weren't good enough, but at the same time he somehow seems to think that such criticisms of US-critics is relevant and important.

I just find it funny....

Increasingly (to me), it is becoming clear that there are four main factions involved :

1) There are those who will support the US no matter what it does, and criticise anyone who doesn't do likewise as being anti-US, Saddam/terrorist/communist/evil-of-the-week supporting insensitive types.

2) There are those who will support the US no matter what it does, and accept that others have a right to criticise that, and that not all US critics fall into category 4.

3) There are those who criticise or applaud specific actions for specific reasons,

4) There are those who criticise the US no matter what it does.

Depressingly, I would expect most people to strive to be in group 3, but the opposite seems to be the case.

In order to be "principled" these days, it seems you have to take an absolutist* stance pro- or anti-.

I guess I'm not principled then....

jc

* I would have said fundamentalist, but I'm sure that would rub too many noses from categories 1, 2, and 4.