Shoes and Eggs pelted at Tony Blair in Dublin

galwayrush

KeithAFC wrote: »

The war in Iraq was not illegal.

True, i haven't seen it listed in the War Tribunal list at The Hague.....

ascanbe

mickydoomsux wrote: »

The difference is that the attacks in London and New york were carried out with the intention of killing innocent people.

The innocent people being killed in the war are unfortunate collateral damage. It happens in every war, which you'd know if you actually bothered to learn more about the subject.

If these anti-war types had been around during WW2 they would have been shot for being traitors.

Ah, that explains everything.
Let no-one ever have the nerve to disagree with an established country's decision to invade another country again; regardless of the motivation or the premise they base that decision on.
Your post should be compulsory reading for citizens of all countries at risk of possible attack by another; i'd imagine it would be of great comfort to, say, a mother and father who at the time of any given invasion, had to pick their baby son/daughter's smashed body up and then bury it, after a mis-concieved, ill-directed or just plain careless missile attack.
The relief in knowing their dead child was just 'unfortunate collateral damage' would be inestimable; they'd probably begin to wonder why some people were making such a big deal about the whole thing!

Min

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Could you cite that, please? I'd like to know more about it.

I read it here, had to googled as it was a few weeks back...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4888
http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/20/728140
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgovGxb0ykI - John Pilger on the current situation.

You can add to that the 80+ F15 fighter jets the US is selling to Saudi Arabia - the Saudi's don't like the Iranians and are believed to have done a deal with Israel to allow Israeli fighter jets fly in Saudi airspace.
The sale of the latest Patriot missiles to protect Kuwait.

The people protesting against Tony Blair are naive when you think about Ireland's key role in all of this and consider the number of US troops that have passed through Shannon on the way to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

galwayrush

ascanbe wrote: »

The relief in knowing their dead child was just 'unfortunate collateral damage' would be inestimable; they'd probably begin to wonder why some people were making such a big deal about the whole thing!

Many Kurdish parents were upset at the deliberate murder of their kids under Saddam's regime......

Gigiwagga

[QUOTE=mickydoomsux; Oh wait, that didn't happen. An unfortunate side effect of war is that innocents get killed. Like in say, oh i don't know, London Tube bombings or when someone flies a plane into a building full of people. But i forgot, Westerners are evil and deserve to die whereas Saddam and every single Iraqi citizen, army and insurgents included, are saints on Earth.

[/QUOTE]

Oops have you been on this planet this past decade or not, er, I know a lot of people here are probably letting out a great big sigh, but say, tell me what had Iraq do do with any of those incidents you mentioned, jesus I mean are you serious here? Could anybody living in this country be really as poorly informed as you, sorry, no offence, but you're a good deal scarier than any insurgent IMO.

Ann22

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Blair said he believed that Saddam could develop weapons in the future which would be a threat to the West. If he genuinely believed that as one of the reasons for invading, then I can see where he's coming from.

I wouldn't like to have to have made that decision. He was brave and right imo to invade. Saddam was a threat to the rest of the world never mind what he was doing to his own people. If years had passed and no one invaded Iraq, then it all came about about the atrocities that were carried out during his rule...can you imagine the abuse the super powers would get for letting it all happen?

I like Tony Blair, he made the effort to help bring peace to this country. Ryan Tubridy was an embarrassement interviewing him last night...how many times did he expect an answer to 'but there were no weapons of mass destruction'...for fcuk sake! He gave his reasons for invasion clearly. I was hopping mad watching it.:mad:

whitesands

galwayrush wrote: »

He's hardly gaining from it as an offset in tax if he's donating all the profits to charity...:rolleyes:

He can offset the money he DONATES against his personal tax bill :rolleyes:

Gigiwagga

dan719 wrote: »

The computer you typed this post on, the lifestyle you enjoy living in the west, the fact that you'll have food on the table in the morning without a clue where it came from and many more modern luxuries..................

It could be argued you are implicit in the starvation of babies in Africa every single day. Why don't you sell all your worldly possessions, and then spend the rest of your life helping hungry children........since you CARE SO MUCH?

Get off your moral high horse. You are no better than anyone else living in the west. F*ck Iraq. They went to war, people died. That happens. If Blair turned around and said the war was about securing oil supplies, I still wouldn't give a damn, at the end of the day, we need oil.

Wee bully for you enjoy your not giving a damn mate, obviously in a loftier place than all us crusty/leftie types eh?
Why do I have to be on a moral high horse to care about innocent people being killed by greedy scum like Bush/Blair, are you ok with their approach, is that what you teach your kid : Take what you can, destroy whoever gets in your way, is that your moral compass. Yaknow I don't care enough, that's the fcuking problem, I'm just another middle aged lard arse in his den, feeling the little twinge of guilt, and I resent my self for my complacence unlike some. Wowza.

ascanbe

galwayrush wrote: »

Many Kurdish parents were upset at the deliberate murder of their kids under Saddam's regime......

I'm sure they were; i won't bother going into detail about America and Britians role in propping up Saddam at that time, their role in supplying him with weapon's and their role in encouraging the Kurds to rise up, subsuquent abandonment of them and the helping hand they gave Saddam in carrying out his retribution.
See, that kind of thing points to a well thought-out, some would say nefarious, certainly self-serving strategy, regarding the middle-east that people here have every right to disagree with.
Not only on moral grounds; but even on the grounds that they see it as strategically mis-guided for the 'west' to act in this way.
Saddam Huessin was a despicable cnut; but that doesn't justify the lies given to justify the invasion or the monsterous acts of wanton destruction/murder perpetrated in its carrying out.

Foxtrol

whitesands wrote: »

He can offset the money he DONATES against his personal tax bill :rolleyes:

Sorry but your insinuation that this is a money making scam makes absolutely no sense. Even if he does reclaim this on his personal tax bill (theres no guarantee he will) he will still have donated several million more to the charity then he can reclaim.

Gigiwagga

mickydoomsux wrote: »

The difference is that the attacks in London and New york were carried out with the intention of killing innocent people.

The innocent people being killed in the war are unfortunate collateral damage. It happens in every war, which you'd know if you actually bothered to learn more about the subject.

If these anti-war types had been around during WW2 they would have been shot for being traitors.

If YOU knew anything about the subject you would understand that it wasn't really a war, it was an invasion, the Iraqis were on their knees after ten years of brutal sanctions when Bush/Blair started their offensive. Would you describe it as a war if the full weight of the US/UK etc armed forces invaded and bombed the bejasus out of Ireland, would it be a war because the British and US decide to call it one, jesus what age are you. Get out much?

Foxtrol

Gigiwagga wrote: »

Wee bully for you enjoy your not giving a damn mate, obviously in a loftier place than all us crusty/leftie types eh?
Why do I have to be on a moral high horse to care about innocent people being killed by greedy scum like Bush/Blair, are you ok with their approach, is that what you teach your kid : Take what you can, destroy whoever gets in your way, is that your moral compass. Yaknow I don't care enough, that's the fcuking problem, I'm just another middle aged lard arse in his den, feeling the little twinge of guilt, and I resent my self for my complacence unlike some. Wowza.

dan719 has a point. The hypocrisy of the "crusty/leftie types" always astounds me. They are so quick to get on their moral high horses and bring along their rent a mob (fully equipped with the always necessary Palestinian flag) to protest against easy Western targets like Bush/Blair/Israel while completely ignoring others with much worse backgrounds. Also, the fact they act like yobs doesn't garner them to too much support either.

whitesands

Foxtrol wrote: »

Sorry but your insinuation that this is a money making scam makes absolutely no sense. Even if he does reclaim this on his personal tax bill (theres no guarantee he will) he will still have donated several million more to the charity then he can reclaim.

Why would it me a money making scam, he's rich & doesn't like paying tax, him & his family are sorted, the elite/bankers look after their own.

Blair kicks back every night with champagne & cigars, while cracking jokes about the mongos who turned up to buy his bull**** book :rolleyes:

Foxtrol

Gigiwagga wrote: »

If YOU knew anything about the subject you would understand that it wasn't really a war, it was an invasion, the Iraqis were on their knees after ten years of brutal sanctions when Bush/Blair started their offensive. Would you describe it as a war if the full weight of the US/UK etc armed forces invaded and bombed the bejasus out of Ireland, would it be a war because the British and US decide to call it one, jesus what age are you. Get out much?

Wars generally involve invasions or else its just throwing rocks/missiles across the boarder. Of course one of the reasons they started the war was because they knew that Iraq wouldn't have the military capability to hold them off for very long in conventional warfare.

Gigiwagga

galwayrush wrote: »

I would be very scared if he was not stopped, i have no doubt he would have developed and used weapons of mass destruction if he was left alone.

You 'have no doubt', really, on what basis do you have no doubt, I mean to the point of being very scared, like seriously where do you live, Galway and you'd be scared, Jesus, too many magic mushies I'd say. Com'on flash us your inside knowledge on Saddams weapons ambitions, his military strategy you must have some inside track since it's having such an effect on you, do fill us in.

To me your juvenile insight only gives a solid mass and moral justice to those who bothered their arse to protest the scumbag's presence in this country, long may they continue.

Gigiwagga

TT09 wrote: »

i think everyone should go into their local easons and move his book into the crime section

Bloody great idea!!!!

Foxtrol

whitesands wrote: »

Why would it me a money making scam, he's rich & doesn't like paying tax, him & his family are sorted, the elite/bankers look after their own.

Blair kicks back every night with champagne & cigars, while cracking jokes about the mongos who turned up to buy his bull**** book :rolleyes:

Sorry but to quote you from a page back:

whitesands wrote:

So he can offset it in tax, tax free blood money, don't be so naive.

So from this you are saying he gave money to charity to "offset it in tax" because though he's rich he just "doesn't like paying tax". Jesus the lefties better stick to throwing their eggs and shoes as their ability to form a conspiracy theory isn't what it used to be.

Nodin

K09 wrote: »

The US already had a formidable presence in the region(which I do no agree with) - in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Turkey.

"while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein"
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

(my bold)

Jeboa Safari wrote:

Those hadn't worked though.

He was constrained to the centre of the country by a Northern and Southern no fly zone. He increasingly has to make alliances with tribal leaders. He even adopted a show of religous observance to try to keep some grip on popular feeling (the sanctions had prompted something of a revival in religion in Iraq at the time). He was unable to threaten the Kurdish autonomous zone. Thats "working" as far as I can see it.

Jeboa Safari wrote:

Blair said he believed that Saddam could develop weapons in the future.

Blair now says "he believed that Saddam could develop weapons in the future". Blair back then said he had them. "categorically" even. What they hoped to find was a few old cans of gas that they could point at and say "theres the WMD" (to which a critic might say - 'but thats hardly a threat' to which they'd reply WOULD YOU LIKE THAT DROPPED ON YOUR BABIES' and so on and so forth)

Jeboa Safari wrote:

If he genuinely believed that as one of the reasons for invading, then I can see where he's coming from.

Fortunately we know a good deal of what was believed by the British government at the time.

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY



DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

whitesands

Foxtrol wrote: »

Sorry but to quote you from a page back:



So from this you are saying he gave money to charity to "offset it in tax" because though he's rich he just "doesn't like paying tax". Jesus the lefties better stick to throwing their eggs and shoes as their ability to form a conspiracy theory isn't what it used to be.

It's a PR exercise

argonaut

Foxtrol wrote: »

Sorry but to quote you from a page back:



So from this you are saying he gave money to charity to "offset it in tax" because though he's rich he just "doesn't like paying tax". Jesus the lefties better stick to throwing their eggs and shoes as their ability to form a conspiracy theory isn't what it used to be.

I agree with this completely, and I say that as a 'lefty' myself, albeit not one of the kneejerk "America, is loike, evil" persuasion.

Nodin

galwayrush wrote: »

I would be very scared if he was not stopped, i have no doubt he would have developed and used weapons of mass destruction if he was left alone.

galwayrush wrote: »

Many Kurdish parents were upset at the deliberate murder of their kids under Saddam's regime...... .

While touched by your personal story of fear and, indeed, concern for the welfare of a minority oppressed across the middle east, I'm unfortunately compelled to point out that you thanked this post....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67840741&postcount=369

the highlight of which is

dan719 wrote:

Get off your moral high horse. You are no better than anyone else living in the west. F*ck Iraq. They went to war, people died. That happens. If Blair turned around and said the war was about securing oil supplies, I still wouldn't give a damn, at the end of the day, we need oil.

Not very consistent now, is it? Its almost like you were coming up with reasons to support the war just for the sake of it.

FionnMatthew

Ok, the ignorance level here has gone up a few notches. Really, I'm not saying that out of some desire to castigate people, but it really should give those pause who prefer to speak without knowing. It is no way to conduct a political argument. It's more of a plea not to be so epistemically irresponsible with your opinions.

mickydoomsux wrote: »

When you grow up and get out of secondary school/college you'll realise how few people care. Also, being smug about how much you care and how much better than all us peons with better things to worry about you are and then calling people smug is just hilarious

It's still wrong, no matter how few people care. It's a sad state of affairs that few care, but that in itself is no reason not to care.

And if you think that caring is just a reason to be smug, it's no wonder you're ill disposed to having a global conscience. It's not about being smug. It's about no longer being able to ignore our complicity in a world status quo that is unjust.

Ah yes, i remeber it well. All that footage and all those photos of Blair personally bayonetting Iraqi toddlers in the face. Oh wait, that didn't happen. An unfortunate side effect of war is that innocents get killed. Like in say, oh i don't know, London Tube bombings or when someone flies a plane into a building full of people. But i forgot, Westerners are evil and deserve to die whereas Saddam and every single Iraqi citizen, army and insurgents included, are saints on Earth.

Unless it was written just to provoke, this post betrays an alarming lack of apprehension as to the reason for opposing foreign wars. Opposing the indiscriminate killing of foreign civilians in a war of choice does not remotely imply support for terrorism, or antipathy for the victims of terrorist attacks in the West.

One of the myriad reasons for opposing a war in Iraq is the established fact that the action exacerbated Islamic fundamentalism in a previously religiously moderate part of the ME, and further endangered the lives of innocents in Western democracies.

It is possible to care about the lives of innocents regardless of nationality. You don't have to choose. It isn't an all or nothing thing between the lives of those in other cultural blocs, or ours.

It reminds me of Karl Rove's cynical accusation that the "left" wanted to put the terrorists in therapy, simply because they didn't think entering an indefinite and undefined strategic commitment in Afghanistan wasn't a cogent response to an orchestrated terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Finally, yes, collateral is an inevitable consequence of war. That's why, in order to minimize it, there are international laws governing the conduct of war, previously mentioned, which prohibit the use of disproportionate force, lay out strict rules of engagement, and forbid the use of certain sorts of weapons, such as radioactive munitions or white phosphorus. Both of which were used in Iraq, the latter in the siege of Fallujah. The declaration of war is not a blanket sanction for any atrocity. Just war is supposed to be surgical, quick and proportional.

Nodin

Ann22 wrote: »

I wouldn't like to have to have made that decision. He was brave and right imo to invade. Saddam was a threat to the rest of the world ........

Odd that tony and co didn't think that he was themselves....

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

(It should be pointed out that Libya had used its "WMD" - it consisted of gas and napalm - in a war against Chad.)

Mike 1972

K09 wrote: »

How would the world be if Saddam was not toppled? Iraqis living in permanent fear. Incredibly high child mortality rates, ethnic groups tortured and murdered, .

As opposed to........?

Jeboa Safari

Mike 1972 wrote: »

As opposed to........?

Iraqi's who now have hope of a better future for them and their children living in a free society?

Mike 1972

And santa might come this December

Gigiwagga

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Just war is supposed to be surgical, quick and proportional.

Is it supposed to be that indeed, this sentence is bizarre in itself. Do me a favour, please define a 'Just War' for me, is it a bit like a 'Just Rape' or a 'Just Murder' as in they might be 'surgical, quick and proportional' also. I understand your attempt to link arms and pray here but the point of the protest was the presence of what many people consider a major war criminal, flogging his memoirs, which I believe is his feeble attempt to redeem himself to his critical public, as he realises in the end this is what matters to him; a clear conscience.
Personally I hope he never has an easy nights sleep for the rest of his days, and that he is increasingly haunted by the deaths of so many, British, Iraqi and US casualties, collateral (or what ever jargon is sprinkled on it).

He IS a guilty man and he knows this to be so, how could he not. He knows full well what he has done.

starbelgrade

Today's 'Post of the Day' summed the whole argument up nicely & was very funny too;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67832424&postcount=1

Nice one, fcussen!

Pete M.

Just wading in here, but having not personally felt compelled to protest at his visit, I was kinda glad to see that someone was organised enough to protest against it.

It's sickening, between him and Bertie, coming out after all the sh1t has gone down and trying to frame themselves in glory somehow.

Fcuked up this cult of former head of state personality that's going round is.

It certainly wasn't a visit to herald, like those idiots people getting their copies of his book signed were.

Millicent

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Iraqi's who now have hope of a better future for them and their children living in a free society?

Despite the fact that quality of life worsened for the people in the two years after the war started in 2003?

Or that last year, economists put the emigration figures at 2 million and described life as "unbearable" for many? Or that the Iraqi economy was ruined by the "war" (not what I call killing 1 million brown people--citizens-- somewhere far enough away so as not to be important to some here, apparently) or that the US administration has suggested that the Iraqi people should finance the reconstruction of their economy and infrastructires?

Those people living in a free society?

FionnMatthew

Gigiwagga wrote: »

Is it supposed to be that indeed, this sentence is bizarre in itself. Do me a favour, please define a 'Just War' for me, is it a bit like a 'Just Rape' or a 'Just Murder' as in they might be 'surgical, quick and proportional' also.

A just war is ideally what international law should aim to define as a legal war.

I won't exhaustively define a Just War for you, because that's a topic of much debate. I'll just let you go and read some Just War Theory.

It is nothing like a just rape, because I cannot think of any circumstances in which a rape might be just. I can think of some situations in which it might be argued (I'm not saying successfully) that killing is just, although in that case, it would not be called "just murder." Murder is typically defined as categorically unjust killing. Therefore a Just Murder is an oxymoron. War is not defined as categorically unjust conflict (it is more neutral with respect to whether it is just or unjust), so it is not an oxymoron that there might be a Just War.

A just war is one that is considered justified and permissable by a law-governed international community. While it might be unpalatable for someone with antiwar sympathies to countenance the idea of a just war, the distinction between just and unjust wars is very important to our cause. Very few wars are conducted in accordance with international law governing military conflicts. War crimes are defined with recourse to those international laws. Without the concepts of just war and legal war, you would get to call every act of war a war crime, but the conviction would have no force, no persuasive or judicial power, and there would be no recourse for distinguishing armed genocide from swift military intervention to prevent genocide.

International law gives us a standard by which to demand the regulation of armed conflict in the world, and limit unnecessary civilian casualties, which should be our first priority. We should not make the perfect an enemy of the good.

I understand your attempt to link arms and pray here

I had no intention of linking arms and praying. I was merely correcting another posters apparent conviction that the declaration of war is a blanket justification for the worst of atrocities. It is not; even when war is declared, (which it was not) its execution is governed strictly by laws on proportionality. This is the basis for accusations that Anthony Blair is a war criminal. He doesn't get away with presiding over indiscriminate and disproportional collateral murder simply because "it was a war."

danger mouse

Couldn't fault the guy after he did so much for the Norn Ireland peace process. I think he was badly led up the garden path by george bush.

ascanbe

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Iraqi's who now have hope of a better future for them and their children living in a free society?

It's very much up for debate whether Iraqi's will be better off, if they will be living in a free society or if their decisions from here on in will tally with what the 'west' expects of them; remember that the Shia majority that hold sway in that country are more likely to feel kin-ship with Iran.
Iran; the latest country on the hit-list, if Blair and his ilk have their way.
Regardless of that, even if the current outlook for Iraq was decidedly rosy, which it is definitley not, it wouldn't serve to justify those who led their countries into its invasion under false pretenses, destroyed it and many of its citizens and looked to profit from this deception.
The present situation, as you see it, isn't justification for past actions.
Some would say Germany is in a fairly decent position as a country right now, regarding its economy and potential to wield power; so would it be fair to say that Hitler, given that the present is as it is as result of the past, was right in what he did?
If you changed Germany's past, it wouldn't be as it is right now.

Millicent

danger mouse wrote: »

Couldn't fault the guy after he did so much for the Norn Ireland peace process. I think he was badly led up the garden path by george bush.

While I respect his contribution to the peace process, do you really believe that G W Bush outwitted Tony Blair? I think you are giving him far too much credit. Blair is a smart man, and I'd wager not one to have the wool pulled over his eyes so easily.

Owwmykneecap

super_furry wrote: »

Sure the same geniuses have been protesting outside Eason in Galway all last week, in spite of the fact that Blair wasn't there and wasn't ever going to be there. Same old crusty rent-a-mob.

Rent a quote.

FionnMatthew

dan719 wrote: »

The computer you typed this post on, the lifestyle you enjoy living in the west, the fact that you'll have food on the table in the morning without a clue where it came from and many more modern luxuries..................

It could be argued you are implicit in the starvation of babies in Africa every single day. Why don't you sell all your worldly possessions, and then spend the rest of your life helping hungry children........since you CARE SO MUCH?

Get off your moral high horse. You are no better than anyone else living in the west. F*ck Iraq. They went to war, people died. That happens. If Blair turned around and said the war was about securing oil supplies, I still wouldn't give a damn, at the end of the day, we need oil.

Here is another ignorant post. It is certain that there are many who feign concern for issues of global justice simply in order to feel superior to others. But that in itself does not invalidate concern for issues of global justice, nor does it mean that it is impossible to genuinely care about global injustice, nor does it mean that everyone who opposes the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is just looking to mount the "moral high horse."

Honestly, reactions like this convince me that a lot of support for global injustice comes out of the mistaken sense that those who oppose it are telling you off. It isn't about "moral high horses." People don't have a problem with rapists and murderers simply so they can feel superior to everyone else. They have a problem with them because rape and murder are bad things that everyone ought to have a problem with. So are undeclared wars of choice pursued on false pretexts in remote lands with unnecessary civilian casualties and dubious strategic gains. So are individual acts illegal by international laws on the conduct of war. Somebody who opposes such acts is not on a "moral high horse." They are simply being moral.

Nobody who seriously cares about global injustice is unaware, or needs to be told, about the complicity of Western populations in global injustice. It is one of the primary motivations for activism - that a global status quo is perpetuated in our name - that actions are made in our name - that we all share responsibility for the injustices in the world - that our names are sullied through the actions of the governments that represent us - and that we have a greater chance of alleviating those injustices through domestic and international activism than the victims.

Concern about these issues is certainly a reason to donate a sizable portion of income to the alleviation of world poverty, as many do, but that in itself doesn't abrogate the responsibility to agitate for systematic change in the actions of states, especially those for whose actions we are responsible, or to defend the ideals of global justice. There isn't anything hypocritical about living in the West, and also opposing an unjust Western hegemony at the expense of the majority of the world's population. You might find it troubling being told that you might be complicit, in your indifference, in war crimes the other side of the world, but you can't just shut somebody up by yelling "tu quoque" and imploring us to become aid workers. If we have a point, there's nothing illegitimate about voicing it, or advocating it.

Your final comment just seems unlikely to me. It looks more like you're trying to get a rise than make any real point, seeing as the rationale at work there would justify any armed incursion, as long as the aggressor was strong enough to win. Justice is not the will of the stronger.

Owwmykneecap

So to all the people stereotyping and passing judgement on today, a question.
Where you actually there, did you speak to any one?


I was, I did. Frankly the majority of you are talking bollox.

FionnMatthew

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

So to all the people stereotyping and passing judgement on today, a question.
Where you actually there, did you speak to any one?


I was, I did. Frankly the majority of you are talking bollox.

Sadly, it's not enough that being there gives you a better impression of the protest. Because of the willingness of the spin industry to report only on the aspects of the event that cast antiwar activism in a poor light, the actions of a few have dictated what sort of publicity the action has.

It is legitimate to criticize this. It does not serve the general goals of the protest to court the gossip-proneness of the media in order to bring it into disrepute.

Sheeps

Tony Blair on the late late show was pretty good. Regardless of whether there were weapons in Iraq or not, with the information given at the time the decision to involve Britain in Iraq was a rational decision.

10green bottles

fcussen wrote: »

Because Tony Blair started an illegal war on false premises. No joke, it was in the papers and everything.

People never see his goood side:)
who loves ya Tony?

10green bottles

Sheeps wrote: »

Tony Blair on the late late show was pretty good. Regardless of whether there were weapons in Iraq or not, with the information given at the time the decision to involve Britain in Iraq was a rational decision.

Wee joke here??:)
No fuffin way

oooomy

Just seen this on the six o clock news in new zealand. scumbags in the pissing rain throwing eggs. embarrassing really is there any good news gonna come out of Ireland?

ch750536

I'm English and left the country because of twats like blair. Not singling him out but the whole system is wrong and ****ed. The politicians believe they are 'in power' where they are actually given a job to make sure the country is ran OK for the rest of us to get on with our lives.

Now specifically to blair. He lied and he cheated and as a result hundreds of thousands of people died. They died as a direct result of his lies. The US would not have invaded if they were alone so him being an ally was very important. Even when the country had a march against it (lots of people too) it was ignored, such is the beauty of peaceful protest. blair would look out of the window 'oh, they are marching peacefully again darling, how lovely...' . Poll tax riots, did they achieve anything?

Anyway, at the very least a liar that purposely changed the evidence to cause a country to go to war resulting in the deaths of close to a million people deserves far more than eggs to be thrown.

Min

oooomy wrote: »

Just seen this on the six o clock news in new zealand. scumbags in the pissing rain throwing eggs. embarrassing really is there any good news gonna come out of Ireland?

Later today there should be some good news about Kilkenny making history with a five in a row in the hurling.

fryup

it really makes my blood boil seeing the likes of Sinn Fein at an "anti war" protest

talk about a pack of hypocrites

kfallon

All I can say is the recession must be over if people are throwing good shoes and eggs away.... :pac:

Wertz

Foxtrol wrote: »

Of course one of the reasons they started the war was because they knew that Iraq wouldn't have the military capability to hold them off for very long in conventional warfare.

Wait...they knew that Iraq wouldn't thave the military capability to hold out....but they also "knew" that the Iraqis had weapons capable of mass destruction? Here was a country that at one point in the sexed up UNSCOM report could launch missiles or UAV full of biological chemical agents capable of striking the UK or the eastern seaboard of the US.

It was quite ironic on the day the first tank batallions rolled in hearing the hushed murmurs of imbedded reporters in the convoys speaking of the fear of a bio/chem strike (I have no doubt the troops and the reporters believed it was a possibility BTW) and the oohs and aahs back in the studio.

Here was a country that was supposedly capable of long range strikes against US/UK, unable to launch even one scud with a sarin warhead as a show of force. You think if they'd have had them that they wouldn't have launched? Why hide the strike capability any longer in the face of inevitable military defeat?

fryup wrote: »

it really makes my blood boil seeing the likes of Sinn Fein at an "anti war" protest

talk about a pack of hypocrites

Sinn Féin were there? RSF maybe, 32CSM almost definitely....but I find it very hard to believe that SF themselves turned out to something like this, knowing what the outcome would be.
Besides SF are Blair's best mates. Didn't you hear Tony waxing lyrical about Gerry and Martin on the LLS the other night?


Back on topic; reports on radio news this morning that shoes being thrown may have been a slight exaggeration...it seems a single pair of flip flops were the foot wear in question. :rolleyes:

Mister men

Friend texted me and said this was reported on the nightly news last night in the states. Delighted to say the least. Pity some of those eggs did'nt connect with the war criminal.

Mister men

oooomy wrote: »

Just seen this on the six o clock news in new zealand. scumbags in the pissing rain throwing eggs. embarrassing really is there any good news gonna come out of Ireland?

This is good news. Some folk have a backbone in our country. Imagine that.

galwayrush

Mister men wrote: »

This is good news. Some folk have a backbone in our country. Imagine that.

What exactly did they achieve?