100,000 march through Dublin against War in Iraq

dathi1

Yes pat yourself on the back and be all smug and right on. How does that get Iraq liberated then?

Very easy question to answer:George Bush doesn't get to invade Iraq yet...perhaps
or if he does:
1.The sadam dicticatorshio falls with the loss of 10,000-100,000 lives in 3 months.
2. Bush installs his military dictatorship in the Sunni middle part of Iraq.
3.bush installs his Shia dictator in the south of Iraq.

4. The Kurds get fXXXed around again for the 20th time and are occupied by the Turks in Northern Iraq (already agreed on) and their human rights record on the Kurds nearly approaches Sadams.

All the above is what the Bush/Blair axis calls: moral crusade and liberal democratisation.
Then there's the OIL British Petroleum and Exxon yum yum.

and we provided the logistics for this war against "these evil doers"(bush) through Shannon.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by therecklessone
1. The Berlin Wall comes down
2. Tianeman Square (again, excuse my spelling please)
3. Milosevic removed from power in the former Yugoslavia.

These are not good examples in support of your assertion below. The first two are examples of people bringing about change in non-democratic situations. In the third example Milosovic lost at the ballot box. People worked within the (far from perfect) democratic process to remove him.

This is what you said initially:

Do I support violence as a means to a political end? Only when the elected leaders (and remember, unlike the US, we put 'em there) decide to completely ignore the people they serve and decide to do as they please. Peaceful protest is fine up to a point, but what happens if 1 million turn up for the next anti-war march (Dublin grinds to a halt for a start ) and Bertie still ignores us? Do we toddle off home with our tail between our legs?

How would you feel, then if the leaders weren't elected? It seems to me that whether the leaders are elected or not is unimportant to you.

What if it isn't an anti-war march but some other issue that you didn't agree with? How then would you feel about organised mass violence in support of a political aim. You are not the first to think along these lines.

The amasing thing is that you used two examples of people essentially fighting for the basic democratic rights we enjoy to justify circumventing the democratic process.

For the record, I'm against the upcoming war against Iraq. I support people's right to demonstrate peacefully their right to oppose the war. I don't believe that this right should extend to violence.

bobsmith833

Originally posted by Loomer

Also its quite possibly the highest turnout per capita of any of the marches round the World .

Sadly that probably isn't the case - 100,000 is 1/9 of Dublin's population, whereas the 1.5 million that turned up in London is about 1/5.

seamus

Originally posted by bobsmith833
Sadly that probably isn't the case - 100,000 is 1/9 of Dublin's population, whereas the 1.5 million that turned up in London is about 1/5.

Actually, per capita....

England, popluation ~ 50 million

1.5 million ~ 1/40 of population

Ireland, population ~ 4 million

100,000 ~ 1/40 of population.

This is assuming no welsh or Scottish people travelled to London to participate

In comparison to a lot of other countries, Dublin has an extremely large population, in terms of the overall national population.

Yeap, and it looks like, those that protested are going to have to keep the comfy shoes on, as the politicians both here and in the U.K are varying from being coy about it to ignoring it altogether.

I heard one person here say *cough* more people are prepared to pay €60 and travel across the country to watch a Robbie Williams concert than protest for free against the War in Dublin:rolleyes:

The other consideration is the 40% core Fianna Fáil support that never wavers which makes a protest, even of this size while they are in power have less effect....and the gas thing is some of them must have been on the protest....but they won't vote for anyone else.
mm

Von

Twas all a good bit of dignified crack. I was in the bursting bladder bloc until Stephens Green.

The secretary general of FF is jumping ship at an interesting time so he is.

PH01

That was a fantastic turn-out and I'm slightly sorry to have missed it (couldn't miss the England France match). 100,000 turnout is fantastic and the turnout all over the world on Saturday was something else. If Bush/Blair and Saddam don't get the message from this righteous popular protest then nothing will get through.

However, I don't think the Saturday protest will stop the war. The 'war' card has already been dealt and it's going to happen.

What happens after Saddam's removal from power is anybody's guess.
One thing is for sure, Bush and Blair are going to be mightily unpopular in the short term and if they fùck-up the peace in Iraq their careers are over. So too are those who back them in this war - and Bertie Boy may be included in this (that is if Ireland gets off the fence - which they won't, and shouldn't)

bug

It was a great atmosphere and a great turn out. It was great to see young families and the ordinary people come out. I have regained my faith in our generation.

Snowball

The turn out was incredible. I was so swamped with work. The whole thing was great!!

Originally posted by pencil
100,000 & a turn out from all walks of life...

The Gardi (last I heard) thought that the figure was about 100,000 but a lot of people went home. I was a stuart and a co-ordinator from Carlow (among others) and when I left Parnell square it was completly blocked with ppl. It took me 10 mins to get from the Graden of rememberance to the Embasador (and the whole around by the hosptial was the same). It took me the bones of an two hours to walk/run from there to Stevens green (was suposed to be at from of march) and when I got there I was told that the crowd was already at Dame st.
At two o'clock (before the marched started to move) march was stagnet from Parnell square to Trinity. The best estimete of our guys (Irish Anti-war Movment, who do this kinda thing all the time I might add) is between 110,000 and 150,000. A lot of people went home after the march took so long ion starting.

Originally posted by therecklessone
...but what happens if 1 million turn up for the next anti-war march (Dublin grinds to a halt for a start:D ) and Bertie still ignores us? ...

1st of march March takes place in Shannon.

Originally posted by Regi
Shannon seems to be quite an emotive issue. I saw a poll earlier that stated that a majority of people would be opposed to use of the airport as a refueling point in the event of a UN resolution backing military action in Iraq. Do people no longer support UN resolutions?

1st its not about that. We r suposed to be Neutral (our constitution says so and if we let outside influences to change that without the irish people says so we r in trouble) and second there has been no resolutions yet

Originally posted by mike65
I wonder did any of the 100,000 on the march have any coherent ideas about what to do about Saddam Hussain?

I think the problem is that people think that they have the right to say what goes on in other countries. Dont get me wrong I dont like Saddam but still... In Ireland we were oppressed by the English for 100's of years and we stood up and got what we wanted (or close) and if they Iraqi people want that let them say so but the problem is that there are people (as much as we in the west do not like to think so) that liek Saddam and want to keep him there. The poverty in Iraq (belive it or not) is caused because of teh sanction imposed on them by the UN and the states.
My uncle worked as a doctor over in Iraq (years ago) and said that he had never seen more state of the art equipment and facilities in the hospitals and other places like that. Now.....

Originally posted by Cork
Seriously - judging by openion polls - If a 2nd resolution is passed - The govt. should not allow the use of Shannon.

Thus - acting aganist the UN?

Should the Irish government stop giving grants to companys supplying the US milliatry effort?

I am anti war - But the UN inspectors will be given a deadline. After this deadline - It will be time for either soldiers to leave the Gulf or War.

It is up to Saddam.

Its up to us. The US has the same right to go into Iraq and attack then he has to come over into Ireland and attack because he does not like our gov.

Originally posted by daveirl
no my understanding is that if there was a UN resolution it would say that all member states have to coperate.

But constitutions stand more important than a Un resolution. Our constitution is the foundation of our country.

bobsmith833

Anyone know where I can find pictures of the Dublin march?

mike65

Originally posted by dathi1


All the above is what the Bush/Blair axis calls: moral crusade and liberal democratisation.
Then there's the OIL British Petroleum and Exxon yum yum.

The French and Rusian oil corporations have the inside track
in Iraq if the US and UK/Dutch companies get a piece of the action
it'll be smaller stuff. Total-Fina/Elf-Aquataine will retain all the juicy contracts.

Mike.

mike65

Originally posted by Snowball


I think the problem is that people think that they have the right to say what goes on in other countries. Dont get me wrong I dont like Saddam but still...

Sometimes the outside world should interveen, look what happened in Rwanda, the UN ran and a million died.

In Ireland we were oppressed by the English for 100's of years and we stood up and got what we wanted (or close) and if they Iraqi people want that let them say so but the problem is that there are people (as much as we in the west do not like to think so) that liek Saddam and want to keep him there. The poverty in Iraq (belive it or not) is caused because of teh sanction imposed on them by the UN and the states.

Almost no-one in Iraq wants to live under Saddams rule, why on earth would they?

The UN sanctions on Iraq will remain
in place until Saddam goes, and he wont go until he is forced out and that wont happen from within Iraq.
Sadly.

Mike.

shep the malevolent pixie

Originally posted by bobsmith833
Anyone know where I can find pictures of the Dublin march?

www.indymedia.ie -there's loads of pictures there.

anyone know where i can get bongos for fairly cheap?

sHep :cool:

therecklessone

Originally posted by SkepticOne


What if it isn't an anti-war march but some other issue that you didn't agree with? How then would you feel about organised mass violence in support of a political aim. You are not the first to think along these lines.

The amasing thing is that you used two examples of people essentially fighting for the basic democratic rights we enjoy to justify circumventing the democratic process.

For me, democracy involves certain people receiving the right to exercise power in the interests of the people. That is power is devolved from the people. I have had this discussion with others on other threads, and I'm not going to type another long explanation/justification of my viewpoint here. Suffice to say, I believe that the elected government loses legitimacy when it fails to represent the wishes of its electorate, plain and simple. Now, far from trying to subvert the democracy that both you and I hold so dear, I am saying that I believe there are certain circumstances which justify non-peaceful means to defy an unresponsive government, be it elected or unelected.

I don't want to trash McDonalds. I had a lovely Chicken Royale today, even if the coffeeesucked. But I find it hard to believe that on something as important as the current Middle Eastern crisis, that our democratically elected government can choose to ignore the clear will of the people. How far would you be prepared to let the government act with impunity, while waiting for the next election. How much use will turfing Fianna Fail out in four years be to the people of Iraq in the event of a unilateral US attack in the coming weeks. I'm sure they will appreciate our efforts.

For the record...I believe in peaceful protest. But when the clear will of the people is continually ignored by the authorities, what use is a vote every five years? About as much use as tits on a boar.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Snowball


We r suposed to be Neutral (our constitution says so and if we let outside influences to change that without the irish people says so we r in trouble) and second there has been no resolutions yet

Have you ever read the constitution Snowball. Bunreacht na hEireann makes no mention of neutrality. I read it last night, and unless I missed something, I'm sure of that. It makes mention of the role of the President in relation to control of the armed forces, and also that the Oireachtas shall have the sole right to raise an army in this state. I did not see the word neutrality mentioned once.

Please, will somebody point me in the way of the exact article of Bunreacht which defines Ireland's neutrality????

SkepticOne

Originally posted by therecklessone
For me, democracy involves certain people receiving the right to exercise power in the interests of the people. That is power is devolved from the people. I have had this discussion with others on other threads, and I'm not going to type another long explanation/justification of my viewpoint here.

No. The system of democracy we have here is that the elected government gets to wield power for a period of up to five years.

If they wish to ignore the peoples will, then they lose the election. That is the deal. This puts responsibility on both the elected government and the people electing them.

I think, with respect, that you have not given this much thought because you used the example of the Tienenment Square (a peaceful protest put down by a repressive regime) to justify violent protest in Ireland (a liberal democracy). Spare me the explanation if it involves such ill thought out examples.

Anyway, getting back on topic. Fair play to the protesters for conducting their protest in a peaceful way. This will have far more impact than if their was rioting or violence.

therecklessone

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Spare me the explanation if it involves such ill thought out examples.

Consider yourself spared.

SkepticOne

Thankyou.

mike65

Bertie Ahern has finally spoken on the weekend "anti-war" march, he said he was pleased to see so many agreeing with the governments policy! LOL! What policy?

Mike.

seamus

Originally posted by therecklessone
Please, will somebody point me in the way of the exact article of Bunreacht which defines Ireland's neutrality????

There is nothing in Bunreacht na hEireann, which exactly says "Ireland is neutral".

However, if I may direct your attention to Article 29, Section 1, 2

Originally posted by Eamonn deValera
1.Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice on morality.

2. Irelands affirms it's adherence to the principles of pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination

Section 1 just basically says, "We are friendly and want everyone to be friendly with us and everyone else."

Section 2 doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Basically, "We adhere to the belief that all disputes will be settled only through peaceful mediation, arbitration or lawful judgement."

If you can point out how we can get involved in a war and not be in violation of this section, I'd love to hear it.


Sorry for the OT-ness, I felt this was a loose thread which needed clipping

Loomer

Originally posted by mike65
Bertie Ahern has finally spoken on the weekend "anti-war" march, he said he was pleased to see so many agreeing with the governments policy! LOL! What policy?

Mike.

Surely you jest

therecklessone

Originally posted by seamus

Section 2 doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Basically, "We adhere to the belief that all disputes will be settled only through peaceful mediation, arbitration or lawful judgement."

If you can point out how we can get involved in a war and not be in violation of this section, I'd love to hear it.


Sorry for the OT-ness, I felt this was a loose thread which needed clipping

No problem.

Not being a constitutional lawyer, I would find it hard to meet that particular challenge:D

However, how do we stand in the event of an attack on the national territory? Can we constitutionally defend ourselves in arms? Just wondering...

Liked the "originally posted by...", chuckled a bit.

therecklessone

Actually...just thought of something.

Article 29

3. Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of
international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with
other States.

Can Ireland go to war under a UN mandate, with this clause as our justification?

Cork

100,000 march through Dublin against War in Iraq

This was a Peace March & not a protest against War in Iraq.

I know Socialists, communists and the "Darma & Greg" crowd would like to think that the march was against War in Iraq - but it was a "Peace March".

Even the UN sees War in Iraq as an option.

PHB

What we should be pushing for in the long term is reform of the UN, so that the veto of the Five Powers is watered down.

Just bringing that back up, thats the absolute wrong way of looking at it.
The only reason anyone listens to the securty council whatsoever is because of the veto, without it it would become another general assembly, and you know the good that does.

The reason that the British want a UN security council resolution, besides the public, is that it will mean they have the support of the five super powers in the world.

The security council veto is preventing another world war because nothing happens unless all the nations agree to it, avoiding another eastern question situation.

The terrible thing is that the US are trying to ignore this power, and it will result in a faceoff between US and the other countries.
Blair is a smart politician, and despite his current stance now, all he cares about is getting re elected. Bush, for the time being, has the public support, until the body bags start coming home anyway, and can hence afford his cowboy attitude, Blair can't.

But what really gets me is why people think that the US will suddenly back down once the UK does? I don't really see this happening, nor do I see france not using its veto.
What will be really interesting is when the British have to decide who they want to ally with, the US or Europe, thats when the reall divide will start.

For the record...I believe in peaceful protest. But when the clear will of the people is continually ignored by the authorities, what use is a vote every five years? About as much use as tits on a boar.

So don't vote. Create a party and get everyone to vote for you. There's this mentality in ireland that we MUST have the same political parties (FF, FG etc) year in year out. Get the people behind you, and change things, that is of course, if the people actually want things changed. Otherwise, all you're doing to shouting into the wind.

therecklessone

Originally posted by PHB


The reason that the British want a UN security council resolution, besides the public, is that it will mean they have the support of the five super powers in the world.

But are the five permanent members the five "superpowers" as you claim? Certainly the US and China, but surely India and Indonesia have a good argument to make that they are more relevant than any of the UK, France, or Russia?

Should the fact that certain countries won a war 60 years ago affect who has the decisive say in world events today?

I merely ask this to see what other people have to say on the issue...

As for the importance of the UK vote...I think some people are hopeful that the US will soften its stance in the event of a change in UK policy, because that would effectively leave the US isolated in the Security Council, and with no significant support for unilateral action outside the US, might lead to a UN resolution (pardon the pun) to the crisis. Personally I think UK support is essential to the US right now. Despite various European governments expressing support for the US at the moment, few will be willing to send troops to the Gulf. Maybe the US doesn't need the numbers, but it could sure do with the visible support provided by Brithish troops commited to action in the region.

PHB

The French represent the rest of the EU in the security council.
The UK are still a huge economic power in the world.
As for Russia, I dont know much about it tbh.

And as for addding new veto members, I dont think it would be a good idea since its hard enough to get the 5 to agree to anything.

The UK is if anything a restraining force on the US, and the fact that its pushing for a UN resolution is very importent. If the public force blair to change his policy, then the US will be a free lance "police man to the world," and thats not something I wnat to see.

And as for the fact that Blair is ignoring his people, its his choice. I'd rather that he stood by his own views that if he pandered to the views on the public. Just because the public want something doesn't mean Blair should just roll over and do want they want.

Snowball

Originally posted by mike65
Sometimes the outside world should interveen, look what happened in Rwanda, the UN ran and a million died.
The UN sanctions on Iraq will remain in place until Saddam goes, and he wont go until he is forced out and that wont happen from within Iraq.
Sadly.

Mike.

Thats they problem. If the americans had not interfeard with the Afganie goverment or their country the Al Quaida network would not have attacked. Iraq has not attacked the west so what gives us the right to go in and remove a leader (dictator or not)??? Nothing. The reason that the US want into Iraq is oil, plain and simple and I have a huge problem with that. Oil is a commodity and Iraq should be allowed to sell that commodity as they feel fit. It is a luxuary not a need!!

Originally posted by seamus
If you can point out how we can get involved in a war and not be in violation of this section, I'd love to hear it.SIZE]

Thanx, college is draining the energy and time from my life and did not have the time to look it up.

Originally posted by Cork
This was a Peace March & not a protest against War in Iraq.

I know Socialists, communists and the "Darma & Greg" crowd would like to think that the march was against War in Iraq - but it was a "Peace March".

Even the UN sees War in Iraq as an option.

Cork, were you quoting me? Seems you might have been but because u do not quote anyones post we never know. Anyways I am going to reply.
The "Irish Anti-War Movment" is against war in Iraq. The march was organised by the "Irish Anti-War Movment" and its affiliates (one of which was the "Carlow IT Anti-War Society" of which I am the co-president). The "Carlow IT Anti-War Society" was a local co-ordinator for the "Irish Anti-War Movment" in Carlow. And we stand against war in Iraq. Did u not see the official banners????

therecklessone

Originally posted by PHB
The French represent the rest of the EU in the security council.
The UK are still a huge economic power in the world.
As for Russia, I dont know much about it tbh.

So...

1. France now represents the EU on the SC? You might want to tell Italy, Denmark, Portugal and Spain (have I left any EU members who have come out on the side of the US in the current crisis?) that then. I'm sure you can enlighten us as to when all the member states of the EU agreed on this. France represents itself on the SC, no-one else.

2. UK a huge economic power? And where would you place Japan or Germany in comparison?

3. Russia retains its veto power as one of the victorious Allies from WW2. Neither economics nor population can be used as an excuse for that to remain.

I'm not saying change the make-up of the SC, I don't know enough about it to go down that road. What I am doing is questioning whether the current five permament members are actually the five super powers you claim. Answer me this, if the UN were to be refomed, and five "new" permament members were to be selected, would they include all/any/some of the current ones?