Shannon "peace" Protestors = Hypocrites

bertiebowl

Imagine if Ireland stopped US military aircraft from using Shannon. Do you not think that other countries that are more opposed to the war (France, Germany, Turkey, ect) may follow suit. What about the entire EU? Do you think this would make a statement to Dubya? I think the EU needs to start isolating itself from the US ASAP or else we are going down with them.

I think your still missing my point.

The US or more accurately President Butthead couldn'd give a damn if the entire world wouldn't let him stop his planes to refuel......

Hell the US would just use mid-air refueling......

Protesting at Shannon does not nor can it have any realistic effect on stopping the war in Iraq.

So why are the protestors there?

My conclusion is that a significant number of them have a different agenda, specifically an Anti-American (and probably anti EU/Nice Treaty) agenda......

But do agree with you that the EU as a whole should make a stand. The sooner we get qualified majority voting for foreign policy the better.

The Saint

So that means we should bend over and take it like little girls? Eventually Americans will see the worlds opposition to their foreign policy and force change. If they see that the world is openly defient and opposed to this war then they may think twice. Do you think that America could use air refueling for all of ther aircraft? Do you know how much that would cost? Stopping America using strategic bases would seriously hinder their war effort. This is not just about Iraq, its about every other imperial conquest America embarks on in the future.

bertiebowl

Do you think that America could use air refueling for all of ther aircraft? Do you know how much that would cost?

Eh dude, it won't cost them much to use air refueling - oil could be a lot cheaper for the Americans real soon.

Meh

Originally posted by bertiebowl
Eh dude, it won't cost them much to use air refueling - oil could be a lot cheaper for the Americans real soon.

Doesn't matter how cheap oil is, 747's can't be refuelled in the air. As has been pointed out before. So your entire point is moot.

bertiebowl

Okay I'm not a technical expert on refueling jumbo jets - but let me tell you this - the Americans would've got their troops to the gulf with or without Shannon........so the protest there is not going to stop the war......

No the protest there is about a different matter altogether , but merely disguised as "antiwar".

The protest is about stopping US military flights through lil ole Ireland - not about saving lives in the middle east

Cork

Originally posted by Man
Does anyone know, if an opinion poll has been taken yet on the troops through Shannon issue?
It amazes me, if there hasn't been one.

I notice, GW Bush's approval rating is dropping towards 50% now, but that will rise, if, theres another Terrorist attack there.

mm

The demos in Shannon are not very large. I think that the Shannon issue really is a red herring.

If it was unconstitutional - it would be challanged.

The Saint

Bertiebowl, your defeatism is shocking. Its a good thing that we didnt have people like you in 1916.

mike65

Originally posted by The Saint
Bertiebowl, your defeatism is shocking. Its a good thing that we didnt have people like you in 1916.

Saint you don't know your history, at the time most ppl in Dublin thought the Easter rebels were fools.

Mike.

pro_gnostic_8

Now, see, DK, you said the Shannon protest is a direct action against the war. But to judge by the claims of those participating in the protest it is a statement declaring our neutrality. But I'm in agreement with you ........... there is most definitely a high-count anti-war agenda involved.

I have no beef against an anti-war protest; we live in a democracy where there is the freedom to protest against anything you wish. However, I would object to the misappropriation of the neutrality issue by these protesters for their own primary purpose(anti American militarism and anti-war). And since the anti-war sentiment is the ascendant issue with these people, why protest about it here in Ireland.? Why don't these protesters against war with Irag go THERE and protest against human rights abuses and terrorism and the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein?

DadaKopf

Come on now. Get real.

Victor

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
that the real determination of the Shannon group is motivated by an anti-American and anti-war sentiment rather than a protest against the perceived trespass of Irish netrality.

Are you suggesting that a pro-neutrality and anti-war stance are inconsistant? I would consider them mutually supportive.

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
If I could ask a related question, please. If subsequent to January27th, the UN Security Council does sanction military action in Iraq, do the neutrality protests in Shannon then become invalid?

That is a separate, but valid question (that should be considered before the 27th). However, you cannot arbitarily change the law for now (before the 27th) without the Dáil's consent.

Originally posted by Cork
The demos in Shannon are not very large.

Compared to what?

Originally posted by Cork
I think that the Shannon issue really is a red herring.

And what do you think is the main issue then?

Originally posted by Cork
If it was unconstitutional - it would be challanged.

:rolleyes: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77890

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Vuk
I would really like to know, where DadaKopf or anyone in this thread has expressed anti-American sentiment.

Well, Vuk, Dadakopf mentioned neutrality only once in his original post yesterday and then only indirectly and with the adjective alleged as a codicil. Conversely, there have been many references to the "war" and opposition to the "war". Since we are aware that this possible war in Irag will be an American driven exercise, I'm aware that anti-war sentiment contains some anti-American sentiment. Enough of the pedantry. Most anti-war protesters and anti-anything protesters do have some predisposition towards condemnation of American policy. You don't see too many protests against wars that have no American imput. Very few protests when Egypt invaded Israel, when Russia invaded Afghanistan, when China invaded Tibet.....etc.

Okay, in the interests of peace, I'll compromise and call it "anti American policy" in future.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Victor
Are you suggesting that a pro-neutrality and anti-war stance are inconsistant?

Victor, I honestly believe the two are mutually exclusive!
Neutrality as I understand it is the mind-set of not helping or supporting either of two opposing sides. However, as suggested in my above post, the anti-war stance is invariably flavoured with a critical view towards American policy and methodology. This is not being neutral. I'm all in favour of neutrality, but lets have a bit of consistency in our neutrality and not just get all righteous about it when we feel like a bit of the ol' American bashing gig periodically.

bonkey

I've gone back to the original post to stop walking in circles here....

Originally posted by bertiebowl
I just read the report in the Irish Times yesterday about the Shannon "peace" protestors.

...

Behind the banner were about maybe 20-30 people carrying posters entitled "US Bombers off Irish soil" or word to that effect.

See, the whole confusion here is the misuse of teh term "peace" protestors. Either these people are complaining about teh war, or they are not.

If they are complaining about teh war, then they are not hypocrites - they are complaining about the war and therefore are against it.

On the other hand, if they are not complaining about the war, then they are not peace protestors. They are protesting a dsitinct (although related) issue - the use of Irish soil in a manner which could/can be construed as unconstitutional or illegal.

You cant have it both ways....how can you claim they are peace protestors if they are not calling for peace. If they are calling for peace, then where is the hypocracy?

The fact that you repeatecly use the term peace in quotes indicates that you are imply that they are not, in fact, peace protestors at all, which once again removes the possibility of them being hypocritical.

In all over the above NOT ONE QUOTE mentions the Iraqi people themselves who are going to be bombed to bits sometime soon.

And you believe that this is the only possible reason one could have for being against the war (even assuming that these people are peace protestors, in which case I would strongly suggest you drop the quotations around the word peace).

I have my own reasons for opposing the proposed military action against Iraq, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the resultant deaths of Iraqi civilians. Indeed, my own fears could be allayed without removing or reducing the threat to the Iraqi people from an invasion, at which point I would more than likely have to say that on balance I would support military action.

Consider : no-one (that I am aware of) has produced any credible figures of estimated civilian Iraqi casualties. Of course, given that no-one really has an idea of the intended plan of action, its kinda hard to provide these figures, but I'd even accept credible estimates based on US military action in the last decade...lets say back as far as the Gulf War.

No-one has shown that these figures will be higher than the estimated loss of Iraqi civilian life caused by Hussein remaining in power, which it should be pointed out will span over a far longer timeframe.

In summary, no-one has shown that military action is a worse option to the status quo in terms of loss of innocent life. And yet you are arguing that this loss of life is the crux of the matter. Why? Maybe invading Iraq will result in a net saving of lives. You havent shown that it wont, nor even argued the point.

jc

Vuk

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Since we are aware that this possible war in Irag will be an American driven exercise, I'm aware that anti-war sentiment contains some anti-American sentiment.Enough of the pedantry. Most anti-war protesters and anti-anything protesters do have some predisposition towards condemnation of American policy.

One would have to concede that anti-war by association could be branded as anti-American. However anti-American is too much a strong and general phrase as is 'anti-American policy', because we are anti-American war policy, nothing else, just war. I protested, as did many, against Clinton's policy in Yugoslavia while applauding him for his work in Northern Ireland.
I would also say to prove my point further, if this was a Pakistani lead invasion into India, I would also be protesting and you would have the fun of call me anti-Pakistani.

So I’ll compromise and call it ‘anti-American by association war policy’:D


Peace out brotha

DadaKopf

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Victor, I honestly believe the two are mutually exclusive!
Neutrality as I understand it is the mind-set of not helping or supporting either of two opposing sides. However, as suggested in my above post, the anti-war stance is invariably flavoured with a critical view towards American policy and methodology. This is not being neutral. I'm all in favour of neutrality, but lets have a bit of consistency in our neutrality and not just get all righteous about it when we feel like a bit of the ol' American bashing gig periodically.

You leave out the word 'militarily' – Ireland is militarily neutral, not politically. There's nothing hypocritical about people expressing their political convictions - in fact, what is most impressive about the Shannon protest is that it connects many interconnected strands of what's going on right now and focuses them on one spot which can be affected directly by the people.

Let's be frank: Washington decided what it was going to do long ago; the US only appealed to the UN out of political expediency - make no mistake, this is a US led conflict. This is about US and UK domestic interests. That is clear to all. To my mind, any Irish contribution to this abuse of UN institutions and obligations (one which allegedly requires us to assist the US) should therefore be opposed.

There's no obligation on anyone to think a particular way at any of the protests but the fact that this is an American led campaign, which has nothing to do with terrorism, automatically colours the argument with what you call anti-Americanism (which should really be called anti-Washingtonism). You should ask yourself the question: why should we get involved in a military campaign that has nothing to do with us and that presents no risk to us or the US? The US didn’t seem too interested in helping Europe in WWII until it affected them.

The way you're seeing it is that each element of the protests are hermetically sealed from one another. This is simply not the case; the whole issue is comprised of a raft of interconnected issues. You seem to be looking for consistency and harmony in what's going on. You won't find it; because of the nature of what we're dealing with, the whole debate is asymmetrical. Things aren't going to be perfect but we have to do our best to make things line up.

But as Bonkey pointed out, we're going around in circles so I'll shut up.

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by bonkey
In summary, no-one has shown that military action is a worse option to the status quo in terms of loss of innocent life. And yet you are arguing that this loss of life is the crux of the matter. Why? Maybe invading Iraq will result in a net saving of lives. You havent shown that it wont, nor even argued the point.

jc [/B]

It's very difficult to argue that war in Iraq will result in a net saving of lives. . . . Bishop Willie Walsh was on Morning Ireland this moning and addressed this very point. Indeed he went as far as to suggest that the war against Hitler certainly did not result in a net saving of lives.

The allies went to war against Hitler because they had to for a very many reasons (and I don't dispute the righteousness of that war) but it would not be true to say that by 1945 less people had died because we went to war. Indeed, if you look through history it's very difficult to find any war where you can balance the death toll against the likely death toll had the war not taken place.....

In short, the number of casualties in Iraq will be determined by the resolve of the Iraqi people to stand by Hussein and fight... If Hussein is as evil a dictator as the Western media would have us believe then we will soon find out when the Iraqi people turn their backs on him. But I fear they won't . . . they didn't in '91 . . .

You also have to add the number of casualties that the ensuing regional instability and likely rush to terrorism will bring about if you want to balance your books....

bertiebowl

Well let me nail my colours straight to the mast

1) I'm against Irish "neutrality", which I believe was a sham anyway, a pragmatic excuse not to spend lolly we couldn't afford on an army we largely don't need

Further more I believe that we should side with countries and stick up with them when necessary instead of insisting of burying our heads in the stand on a constant basis.

2) I'm against the war in Iraq.

Now regarding my original first post I refer to the Shannon "peace" protestors as such because they themselves call it a "peace camp"

However I believe that for the majority of people involved in the "peace camp" their true interest is in kicking off American military from refueling on our soil.

This is our course an entirely seperate issue from the war in Iraq, and thus I deem the majority of protestors in Shannon to be hypocrites as calling yourself "peace" protestors has nothing to do with being Anti-American

scojones

Not wanting a country to refuel it's jets for war in your own neutral country has absolutely nothing to do with being anti-that-country.

It doesn't mean that you are anti-that-country.

Vuk

Ring-a-ring-a-rosie

I think we've all worn out our arguements

So I'm shutting up now, with thanks to all for the lively thread!

Snowball

Originally posted by bertiebowl
The US or more accurately President Butthead couldn'd give a damn if the entire world wouldn't let him stop his planes to refuel......

If he could not refuel in europe or anywere in the world he would no be able to get 90% of his plains there. Also all of his troops would have to be stationed on ships outside in international waters which would limit his efectivness and also the number to troops he could send there. Also he and his people would know that the world is against his and his people would not stand for it.

Originally posted by bertiebowl
Hell the US would just use mid-air refueling......

only about 10% of american plains (as for as my source on this tells me) can do mid-air refuelling and it only works about 80-90% of the time depending of weather.

Originally posted by bertiebowl
Protesting at Shannon does not nor can it have any realistic effect on stopping the war in Iraq.

So why are the protestors there?

My conclusion is that a significant number of them have a different agenda, specifically an Anti-American (and probably anti EU/Nice Treaty) agenda......

I am not anti-america (haev family and freinds over there) and I am pro Euro and some were between Pro and neutral on the Nice thing. So what about me and the 1000's of people in Ireland like me?

P.S: Look up "College Play" over the next week, will be posting about a organised college trip upto Shannon, hopefullyu there will be a good few colleges going.