100,000 march through Dublin against War in Iraq

Cork · 20-02-2003 5:21pm

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???? [/B][/QUOTE]

How are things in Carlow IT?

I did not see your banners.

But would you support war in any circumstances or if a 2nd UN resolution is passed?

Snowball · 21-02-2003 4:51pm

Originally posted by Cork
I did not see your banners.

But would you support war in any circumstances or if a 2nd UN resolution is passed?

Cork, do u ever read what people post? I have replied to many of your posts on this topic over the last month or so and if u can figure where I stand.... this might help:

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... 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.

And if it does not... no. The US, UN, France, Spain, no one has the right to invade anyone elses country. The US has teh same right to go into Iraq as I have to go down the road and break into my neighbours place because I want his telly.

Just because u think you are right or have the right does not mean you are right or have the right.

Meh · 21-02-2003 5:28pm

Originally posted by Snowball
no one has the right to invade anyone elses country.

Unless they have a UN mandate. Chapter 7, Article 42 of the UN Charter:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

So if the UN Security Council decides that an invasion of Iraq is necessary "to maintain or restore international peace and security", then they do have the right to do it under international law.

Bard · 21-02-2003 5:42pm

stupid hippies :rolleyes:

Snowball · 21-02-2003 7:06pm

Originally posted by Meh
Unless they have a UN mandate. Chapter 7, Article 42 of the UN Charter:So if the UN Security Council decides that an invasion of Iraq is necessary "to maintain or restore international peace and security", then they do have the right to do it under international law.

Ah, right. Restore peace and security. When was it that Saddam attacked?, invaded? or treatened to do so in the last couple of years?
When you say restore peace who do u mean from? From Bush (who is the one creating this problem at the moment) or form Saddam (who is a ****ing nutjob but has not actually done anything lately)?

Meh · 21-02-2003 7:39pm

Originally posted by Snowball
Ah, right. Restore peace and security. When was it that Saddam attacked?, invaded? or treatened to do so in the last couple of years?
When you say restore peace who do u mean from? From Bush (who is the one creating this problem at the moment) or form Saddam (who is a ****ing nutjob but has not actually done anything lately)?

The fact remains that the Security Council does have the legal right to authorize an invasion, under universally accepted principles of international law. So your point about the UN not having the right to invade anyone's country was completely and utterly wrong.

Cork · 21-02-2003 9:58pm

Ms Harney accused the protestors, particularly those associated with left-wing politics, of stoking up anti-Americanism and of threatening Ireland's economic ties to the US and Britain.

I was not at the March in Dublin - but Charlie Wolfe (Red FM) was talking about the number of Communist flags at the London March.

I know that they were posters of Geoge W posters at the Dublin with a Hitler mustache.

Was this event event hijacked by extreme socialists, anti- americans & communists?

Should the organisers have taken more care?

I was not at the march but was the event an anti american rally?

My openion is that the march was a giant focus group - a cute vox pop for RTE news.

What ever happened to good protest music?- In the 60s - we had Joni Mitchell, Scott McKenzie, Mamas & Papas, Jefferson Airplane, Dylan etc.

Turner · 21-02-2003 10:14pm

I wonder if there was a pro war march how many people would turn up ??

From looking at various news channels/reports documentries I would be pro a regime change in Iraq.

Chief.

Cork · 21-02-2003 10:40pm

How much money does SF raise in the US?

Socailist partys are very jelous of the US. Believing that the socialist/marxist/communist model is some type of utopia.

I am anti war - but I believe the Anti War movement should not allow their organisation to be hijached by a small but vocal minority.

Tony Blair has done more for both Northern Ireland and devolving government to Scotland and Wales.

Yet - The Anti War movement needs to focus in on the facts & ignore the any anti American sentiment.

I think the Vatican is playing a blinder. It is debating this whole issue with the various world leaders. It has consistantly objected to sanctions and even Desert Storm.

It has not stooped to any Anti- American spiel. I think any Anti- War movement has got to followthis example.

sceptre · 21-02-2003 11:02pm

Originally posted by Cork
How much money does SF raise in the US?

No idea. Probably a lot but I can't see the relevance.

Socailist partys are very jelous of the US. Believing that the socialist/marxist/communist model is some type of utopia.

Er, okaaaaay. See above.

I am anti war - but I believe the Anti War movement should not allow their organisation to be hijached by a small but vocal minority.

They would probably agree with you. Point?

Tony Blair has done more for both Northern Ireland and devolving government to Scotland and Wales.

Good for him. Nothing to do with the subject at hand. Besides, he's leader of a socialist party - shouldn't they be jealous of the US? Tony may not be too socialist at heart but the British socialists are hardly queueing around the block to join the Tories. Maybe they're busy being jealous.

Yet - The Anti War movement needs to focus in on the facts & ignore the any anti American sentiment.

The only people beinging up the anti-American sentiment issue are fools who can't see the point. Dammit, I'm sick of this anti-European attitude from the many people in the US. It's getting a bit old, even the Chirac frogs legs thing.

I think the Vatican is playing a blinder. It is debating this whole issue with the various world leaders. It has consistantly objected to sanctions and even Desert Storm.

Until the Vatican manages to place some nukes next to St John Lateran most countries (yes, even Italy) aren't going to give a flying monkey. The Pope may try to act as an honest broker but until that role actually comes up for grabs, he can say whatever he wants and few will care.

It has not stooped to any Anti- American spiel. I think any Anti- War movement has got to followthis example.

The French government seem to have kept well away from the anti-American sentiment that people are conjuring up as well. Whoopee for them. Seriously these anti-European comments have to stop. No, I mean it, I'm being serious now. Honestly.

Cork · 22-02-2003 1:08pm

The French government seem to have kept well away from the anti-American sentiment that people are conjuring up as well. QUOTE]

France is only putting their own economic interests.

Ireland should not feel uneasy about putting the economic interests of our country first & the future help that the US can give us with our peace process.

How many countries in the world have such access to the US president?

I think - if you had a poll - if people wanted to be "pure but poor" - very few would be in favour.

Ireland has very little influence anyway.

I have no doubt that Saddam will hand George W. reasons to invade Iraq.

Saddam has not made any active effort in complying with US resolutions.

The guy is asking for it. He might as well go around with a sign on his forehead that "Iraq wants War"

Cork · 22-02-2003 1:31pm

I am still aganist this war. But if Saddam wants war - he is going about it in the right way.

If there is war - it will be 100% his fault.

The world cannot make excuses for Saddam not co-operating with the UN.

The war is most likely about resources. But it has alot to do with Saddam and his dictatorship and the way he is treating the UN.

daveirl · 22-02-2003 2:12pm

This post has been deleted.

Cork · 22-02-2003 3:17pm

Originally posted by daveirl
I have yet to hear Saddam threatening the UN with irrelevance.

But he has not actively co-operated in complying with the UN resolution.

Is this not making a joke of the UN?

daveirl · 23-02-2003 2:15am

This post has been deleted.

Cork · 23-02-2003 12:25pm

The US and others had already made the UN a joke long before Sadamm came along

The UN is the only show in town.

Just because, the UN will come down hard on Iraq - if Saddam does not comply with UN resolutions is no reason to trash the UN.

bonkey · 24-02-2003 1:10pm

Originally posted by Cork
But he has not actively co-operated in complying with the UN resolution.

You know, this is a term which has been bandied about in the press a lot - "active co-operation". No-one ever seems to clarify what it means.

I mean...Blix says that co-operation is good, but could be better. He never identifies how it could be better - at least not without ignoring any concerns the Iraqi's may have. I mean - the inspector's want interviews without witnesses or recordings. Their explanation is that this is the only way they can be sure they get the truth. The Iraqi position is that without a record of the interview, the interviewee can be (and has been in the past) quoted out of context etc. to "prove" whatever you like. So, is this a lack of active co-operation?

What next? That Hussein wont voluntarily put himself into exile is a lack of actuve co-operation?

Exactly what do you mean by this Cork?

What is "active co-operation"? Exactly what has Hussein done which is "not actively co-operating"??? Why are the stated Iraqi concerns on any issue not worth even considering?

jc

Cork · 24-02-2003 2:06pm

What is "active co-operation"? Exactly what has Hussein done which is "not actively co-operating"??? Why are the stated Iraqi concerns on any issue not worth even considering?

Iraq had 13 years to voice concerns. The UN will need a complete list of the arms Saddam has.

He has failed to account for much weaponary.

This is not the fault of Geoge W. Bush but ommissions and oversights by Saddam.

But time is running out and either he starts accounting for his weapons or he is facing action by the United Nations.

sceptre · 24-02-2003 3:21pm

Originally posted by Cork
Iraq had 13 years to voice concerns. The UN will need a complete list of the arms Saddam has.

He has failed to account for much weaponary.

This is not the fault of Geoge W. Bush but ommissions and oversights by Saddam.

But time is running out and either he starts accounting for his weapons or he is facing action by the United Nations.

Soundbites, nothing but soundbites.

Perhaps you missed the question you were directly asked so here it is again:

When you bandy about terms like "active co-operation", exactly what do you mean?

bonkey · 24-02-2003 7:36pm

Originally posted by Cork
Iraq had 13 years to voice concerns. The UN will need a complete list of the arms Saddam has.

There has not been a single item of proof that Saddam possesses a single weapon which was not listed. There are allegations but the western powers have singularly failed to lead the inspectors to anything indicating that the list of arms from Saddam is not complete.

He has failed to account for much weaponary.

Not true. He has accounted for every weapon. Where the problems come in is that the west refuse to accept the accounts - rightly or wrongly. Again, there is no evidence either way - it is a case of who you wish to believe - Hussein who has a history of lying, or the US, who've had their "evidence" openly questioned by the UN inspectors at a UN report meeting. Neither side sounds credible at the moment, but you seem to be arbitrarily are choosing who we should believe with no evidence either way.

This is not the fault of Geoge W. Bush but ommissions and oversights by Saddam.

But time is running out and either he starts accounting for his weapons or he is facing action by the United Nations.

And this is nothing but sound-bitism, repeating exactly what it is I asked you to clarify as a clarification.

There are, at best, allegations that Hussein is not being completely open and honest with the UN. Some of them are probably true. However, there isnt a single case where anyone can definitively show that Saddam and Iraq have not been "co-operative". All we get is vague hand-waving motions and nice repetitive claims of "trust us, he's lying".

jc

Meh · 25-02-2003 10:36am

Originally posted by bonkey
There has not been a single item of proof that Saddam possesses a single weapon which was not listed. There are allegations but the western powers have singularly failed to lead the inspectors to anything indicating that the list of arms from Saddam is not complete.

Were the illegal long-range rockets listed or not? I don't think they were...

However, there isnt a single case where anyone can definitively show that Saddam and Iraq have not been "co-operative".

How about not letting his scientists talk to the inspectors alone/unrecorded?

Snowball · 25-02-2003 11:40am

Originally posted by Meh
The fact remains that the Security Council does have the legal right to authorize an invasion, under universally accepted principles of international law. So your point about the UN not having the right to invade anyone's country was completely and utterly wrong.

I think ur wrong. My point is that they don't have a right. Just because the most people thought that the world was flat does make it true. My point is that just because the UN made their own law does not mean that they are right.

If a man comes into my house, attacks my family. Do I have the right to shoot him and kill him, even if he was going to kill my family? maybe the right be does not make the fact that I killed a man morraly right

Originally posted by Cork
I know that they were posters of Geoge W posters at the Dublin with a Hitler mustache.

I am not 100% sure but there were none in Ireland. I had to run from parnell sq. (the end of the march) to the head of the march and I did not see any. There was loads in NY, whats ur point though?

Originally posted by Cork
My openion is that the march was a giant focus group - a cute vox pop for RTE news.

Oh yeah, like 5% of the pop (or close to that), focus group? wtf r u on about? Taking into account that most people have responsabilities and lots of people also have to work on saturdays the indication that over 100,000 people showed up should show that there are alot of people who support the Anti-war movment but just would or would not show up.

Originally posted by Cork
France is only putting their own economic interests.

In referance to?

Originally posted by Cork
Ireland should not feel uneasy about putting the economic interests of our country first & the future help that the US can give us with our peace process.

u on about Northern Ireland? wft has the US to do with that?

Originally posted by Cork
How many countries in the world have such access to the US president?

what? what the hell do u mean?

Originally posted by Cork
Ireland has very little influence anyway.

Absolute bull****. Other countries look at Ireland as a good and imparcial party and lots of people value our countries oppinion, that the problem!!!!!

Originally posted by Cork
I have no doubt that Saddam will hand George W. reasons to invade Iraq.

Nope, he will not be giving up his oil that easily.

Originally posted by Cork
Saddam has not made any active effort in complying with US resolutions.

I think you mean UN but u just made my point, it is the US not the UN making all the demands. The UN was satisfied with Iraq and had left them alone.

Originally posted by Cork
I am still aganist this war. But if Saddam wants war - he is going about it in the right way.

I mean, how dare he sit on those oil fields? who does he think he is, I should own them? I have more of a right to them then he does.

Originally posted by Cork
The world cannot make excuses for Saddam not co-operating with the UN.

How do u mean? how is he not co-operating?

Originally posted by Cork
The war is most likely about resources. But it has alot to do with Saddam and his dictatorship and the way he is treating the UN.

Reading this I though that maybe u might have seen some of the reality but then I read on... If it is really about his treatment of his people (not the UN, unless u mean something else that I cant see) and his dictatorship why has it taken so long for the US to act?

Originally posted by daveirl
The US and others had already made the UN a joke long before Sadamm came along.

Took the words out of my mouth

Originally posted by Cork
The UN is the only show in town.

What?

Originally posted by Cork
Just because, the UN will come down hard on Iraq - if Saddam does not comply with UN resolutions is no reason to trash the UN.

He has been compliying, show me evedance that he has not been. Not speculation, evedance. (include links please)

Originally posted by Cork
Iraq had 13 years to voice concerns. The UN will need a complete list of the arms Saddam has.

Look above

Originally posted by Cork
He has failed to account for much weaponary.

I belive that I tried to explain in another thread that if u make statments that u should know what ur talking about. Much??u sure? what weponry?

Originally posted by Cork
But time is running out and either he starts accounting for his weapons or he is facing action by the United Nations.

I like this, time is running out. TIME TO WHAT? WHAT IS THE COUNT DOWN TO?? THE US OIL RESERVES' COMPLETE DEPLITION???

Originally posted by Meh
Were the illegal long-range rockets listed or not? I don't think they were...How about not letting his scientists talk to the inspectors alone/unrecorded?

one I belive. only one.

Originally posted by Cork
It will be interesting if the French and Germans will now get tough with this dictator.

how?

Originally posted by Cork
It will be also interesting to see - If the Labour party here in Ireland will start having a more critical view on Saddam.

wtf? u trying to not make sence?

Originally posted by Cork
I think that being involved in a protest march with SF has really done them no favours.

how?

Originally posted by Cork
As for SF - I hope the Irish government will now put pressure on Gerry Adam's to push for complete disbandment of the IRA.

Don't even get me started on the North.... One points for muppets like u though, If it was not for the IRA there would be no talks, no peace (they were the first to call a cesfire), no stituation where a resolution could be reached. Don't be so quick to jump on bandwaggons Cork, especialy if u know nothing about the subjetct.

P.S: Sorry about the length of the post and about the onliners

Meh · 25-02-2003 11:57am

Originally posted by Snowball
I think ur wrong. My point is that they don't have a right. Just because the most people thought that the world was flat does make it true. My point is that just because the UN made their own law does not mean that they are right.

So you agree with George Bush on the subject of the UN?

If a man comes into my house, attacks my family. Do I have the right to shoot him and kill him, even if he was going to kill my family? maybe the right be does not make the fact that I killed a man morraly right

Not sure what your point is here. In any case, you have a right to defend yourself and your family, with lethal force if necessary. Except when the intruder has a search warrant granted by a proper legal authority (in this case the UN).

Snowball · 25-02-2003 12:12pm

Originally posted by Meh
So you agree with George Bush on the subject of the UN?

No, Personaly I disagree with both. but thats just me

Originally posted by Meh
Not sure what your point is here. In any case, you have a right to defend yourself and your family, with lethal force if necessary. Except when the intruder has a search warrant granted by a proper legal authority (in this case the UN).

My point was that just because one belives that one is right does not make it so.

bonkey · 25-02-2003 12:17pm

Originally posted by Meh
Were the illegal long-range rockets listed or not? I don't think they were...

The rockets were of a design previously okayed by the inspectors, as far as I am aware. It is only recently that they have decided that because up to 25% of the rockets exceeded design-range during testing that the rocket must now be destroyed because it violates the sanctions.

I agree - the rockets should be destroyed, but I do not agree that Iraq tried hiding anything about them. The information was there, the rockets have an operational limit which is legal, but it is the theoretical range which is being made an issue now.

Its not an easy one to call. I notice how cagey the UN inspectors have been about saying exactly how far over 150km these rockets go? Is it 151km? 200km?

The issue here is that all weapons of war have an operational limit and design limit which is always set less than the maximum limit that has been reached - it is set around the maximum consistently attained limit.

The question the press have not even addressed, nor have I the background to answer, is whether or not it was maximum tested limits, design limits, or operational limits that were stipulated in the first place.

How about not letting his scientists talk to the inspectors alone/unrecorded?

Sure, and how about the UN prove that the scientist who alleges that his unrecorded/unmonitored interview from a previous inspection was quoted out of context and misquoted in order to fulfill the aims of the UN.

Its a tough call, but unless someone has an independant copy of an interview there is no credibility attachable to them in the first place.

Yes, I see the difficulty in this - if the scientist can prove what he said, then Saddam can check what he said, and therefore can pressure him to say only certain things.

However, the opposite still holds true - there are allegations of previous interviews having been misrepresented, which is why this has come up as an issue.

Of course...its only the US we should believe when they make statements without evidence apparently, so I guess that this isnt really a valid point

jc

Cork · 25-02-2003 1:24pm

The UN was satisfied with Iraq and had left them alone.

The UN passed a resolution that Saddam is ignoring. What we need is the UN to establish its authority with rougue states. Saddam has stated on CBS that he will not comply with DR. Blix's demands on their long range weapons.

Don't even get me started on the North.... One points for muppets like u though, If it was not for the IRA there would be no talks, no peace (they were the first to call a cesfire), no stituation where a resolution could be reached. Don't be so quick to jump on bandwaggons Cork, especialy if u know nothing about the subjetct.

SF were involved in the Anti War Protest. I am not going to list the list of events over the last 30 years that SF failed either to condemn.

I hope the US will cop on to SF the next time they come around looking for dollars. But, I think Mary Harney hit the nail on the head when she made her comments on this march.

Originally posted by Cork
Ireland should not feel uneasy about putting the economic interests of our country first & the future help that the US can give us with our peace process.

u on about Northern Ireland? wft has the US to do with that?

Well. Bill Clinton did invest alot of time & energy in the Peace Process as has Tony Blair & Bertie.

Hopefully they'll now put pressure on SF to push for IRA disbandment. After 9/11 - the world has had enough of illegal armies & their supporters.

I hope that the Irish Labour party will begin to support future UN resolutions. Saddam coming out today saying that he will not accept UN demands should be a wake up call for France & Germany.

Appeasement does not work with Saddam. We should not allow him walk all over the UN. France has economic interests in Iraq. Would the French people live under Saddam? Saddam has to go & he has got to get rid of his weapons & the UN needs to be supported.

100,000 march through Dublin against War in Iraq

Comments