Biggest ever anti-war demo in London on February 15

Former Member

Originally posted by Whowhere
Let's see, reasons why you are a traitor to your country....
1.)You want to see innocent lives in Iraq saved, fine that's noble. However if it means millions of people here die from some sort of plague then you aren't bothered.

There is no real threat posed by Iraq! Iraq has no links with Al Qaeda, it has no plans to use any weapons of mass destruction in an act of aggression even US politicans have said Iraq would never dare use a weapon of mass destruction in an act of aggression for fear of reprisals! Weapons of mass destruction haven't even been found in Iraq. The threat from Iraq is all hype and speculation!

4)You advocate the attack and ridicule of military personnel even though they are trying to protect us.

The military dont protect the people they are there to protect the business interests of the ruling class. Thats why they are in the Gulf right now to protect the big oil companies oil supplies!

And by the way I only advocate violence to stop a much greater act of violence - the mass bombing of a people in a Third World country who although they have suffered greatly under Saddam are not going to be helped by having their country bombed to pieces and be made homeless and suffer all the tradegdy that comes with war.
http://www.stopwar.org.uk

Former Member

Once again, how interesting that MAD which effectively contained two giants from world annihilation even if the face of missile crises and Kruschov's "we will bury you" are suddenly incapable of containing a third rate banana republic despot.

I think people underestimate how much effort Saddam expends to survive and how well he knows that if chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons hit any western nation or even any nation friendly to the west, his survival rate would drop to nil.

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine
.

I think people underestimate how much effort Saddam expends to survive

at the end of the day this guy was our guy. he was our friend. when iran were americas baddies, saddam could have any weapon he fancied..."right away sir... the president himself..." this is not fantasy. this is late 70's through 80's reality. the guy was alowed and furnished by us, his acomplices, to gas any troublesome folk with chemicals supplied by us, so that he could keep his eye on evil iran.
mr hussain would love nothing more than to be trading with the west. he is not like alqueda who want our destruction. this guy wants to build palaces and highways. he was rebuilding the ancient city of babylon and had plans to recreate the fabulous hanging gardens. we destroyed all that. he would love tourist jets to be landing.....

Former Member

One thing that people haven't mentioned on here is the enormous cost of the war. It is going to cost billions and billions of dollars for both an invasion of Iraq, the occupation and the rebuilding of Iraq afterwards! This enormous expense when western economies like Americas' already owe massive amounts in foreign debt. Britain will be spending at least 5 billion pounds on the war as well. But America will be spending many times more and already has a military budget of 396 billion dollars.

Of course there will be the financial rewards from the capture of Iraqi oil fields and people on here say this war is not about oil!

Another thing is that before September 11th there was no mention of a serious threat posed by Iraq but September 11th gave legitamcy to America to intervence militarly thoughout the world where ever it sought fit to do so under its so called "war on terrorism". The war against Afghanistan proved to be a failure though with Al Qaeda still active and able to carry out devastating attacks while the ordinary people of Afghanistan suffered greatly including suffering thousands of deaths and still are not free from turmoil and violence in their country.

Former Member

It's not as bleak as it seems. The Americans are going to use the Iraqi oil to pay for the rebuilding of the infrastructures and cities they are about to bomb into oblivion. Not only that, but most of the companies contracted to do the rebuilding will be American as well.

Neat isn't?

Former Member

Originally posted by Hornblower
One thing that people haven't mentioned on here is the enormous cost of the war. It is going to cost billions and billions of dollars for both an invasion of Iraq, the occupation and the rebuilding of Iraq afterwards! This enormous expense when western economies like Americas' already owe massive amounts in foreign debt. Britain will be spending at least 5 billion pounds on the war as well. But America will be spending many times more and already has a military budget of 396 billion dollars.

Of course there will be the financial rewards from the capture of Iraqi oil fields and people on here say this war is not about oil!

Another thing is that before September 11th there was no mention of a serious threat posed by Iraq but September 11th gave legitamcy to America to intervence militarly thoughout the world where ever it sought fit to do so under its so called "war on terrorism". The war against Afghanistan proved to be a failure though with Al Qaeda still active and able to carry out devastating attacks while the ordinary people of Afghanistan suffered greatly including suffering thousands of deaths and still are not free from turmoil and violence in their country.

It's lovely how you twist things, you really would make a good political commisar if you weren't such an idiot.
yes, America's miliary budget is 396 billion. It will be that amount regardless of wether they go to war or not. It has been over 350 billion for quite some time, so your point is irrelevant.

There have been many references to Iraq being a serious threat over the years, our jets have been shooting his out the skies almost every day since the Gulf war, it's not been mentioned because it's been classed as routine, and nothing to worry about.
And we didn't kill thousands of Afghans, our attacks have been attributed to less than 200 Afghan deaths. If you want to point the finger point it at the remnants of the Taliban and Al-qaeda units who still routinely execute people and have free reign of movement in some parts of Afghanistan.

And it's nice to know you don't refute my claims that you have intefered with military and police matters impeding their ability to stop terrorism. You really are a traitor, and I hope that your irresponsible and traitorous actions don't get any service personnel killed.

Former Member

interesting how you twist things as well whowhere, especially by omitting reference to the brutal warlords in Afghanistan who have been free to return to their own brutally repressive activities over the regions under their control. These wonderful people which America and Britain crawled into bed with in order to oust our former pitbulls. Guess it doesnt matter how many atrocities they commit against their own people now while they are in our pay. We'll be invading Afghanistan again in 20 years perhaps claiming how evil they are then, when we can put enough spin on the matter to wash our hands once again of our own complicity.

Guess our governments' shit dont stink to high heaven as well, is that it?

Former Member

Originally posted by Whowhere

And we didn't kill thousands of Afghans, our attacks have been attributed to less than 200 Afghan deaths.

There were 7,000 recorded civilian deaths in Afghanistan by December 2001! Plus hundreds of thousands of Afghans fled as refugees to escape the bombing and settled in squalid refugee camps on Pakistani border where many then died because the condition in the camps were so bad. Many Afghan people were also injured or killed by cluster bombs which had been dropped on Afghanistan and failed to explode. Whowhere you are a complete idiot if you think that there were only 200 civilian deaths! Didn't you see John PIlgers' excellent article in the Daily Mirror in late 2001 on the suffering caused by the bombing of Afghanistan.

If you want to point the finger point it at the remnants of the Taliban and Al-qaeda units who still routinely execute people and have free reign of movement in some parts of Afghanistan

The Taliban and Al Qaeda would never have come to power in Afghanistan if it hadn't been for America and Britain funding, arming and training the Mujiheden in the 1980s a collection of religous fanatics and bandits. Which included people like Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda cronies who fought not only the Russian occupying forces but also the new government of Afghanistan who allowed the Afghan people great freedom. The Mujiheden also flooded Europe with heroin which Britain and America turned a blind eye when they were backing them!

Former Member

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
In the US the buses etc. were sponsored by a Communist organization: The World Worker's Party or something.

At any rate, the demonstrations were small....especially since America has a population of over 287 million. Overnight, American flags appeared all over the place on houses and shops again. Just like they were after 9/11.

The main reason that the demonstrations were so small in relation to Americas popualtion were because the organsations behind didn't have vast amounts of money! For example take the countryside alliance who were able to organsie a vast 400,000 strong march through London. They were able to do that because they have rich backers and so loads of money to spend promoting their events. The anti-war march a week later though was organsied on a shoe string budget but still managed to get 150,000 people out on the streets. If it had the same money and resources as the countryside alliance then that march would have been much bigger!

Another thing which is a failing with communist organisations is that they are campaigning against a war that is happening on the other side of the world that most people cant relate to. People are concerned more with local issues hence the BNPs recent success by campaigning on local fears over imimgration.

The communists need to campaign against the war on Iraq in a way that local people can relate to. Lets face it unless someone has relatives in Iraq it is not going to be of much concern to them. So they need to play up the local implications of the war such as higher taxes and the diverting of government funds away from social and welfare projects to pay for the war. If they do that then far more people will come out strongly against this war.

Former Member

Originally posted by Hornblower
There were 7,000 recorded civilian deaths in Afghanistan by December 2001! Plus hundreds of thousands of Afghans fled as refugees to escape the bombing and settled in squalid refugee camps on Pakistani border where many then died because the condition in the camps were so bad. Many Afghan people were also injured or killed by cluster bombs which had been dropped on Afghanistan and failed to explode. Whowhere you are a complete idiot if you think that there were only 200 civilian deaths! Didn't you see John PIlgers' excellent article in the Daily Mirror in late 2001 on the suffering caused by the bombing of Afghanistan.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda would never have come to power in Afghanistan if it hadn't been for America and Britain funding, arming and training the Mujiheden in the 1980s a collection of religous fanatics and bandits. Which included people like Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda cronies who fought not only the Russian occupying forces but also the new government of Afghanistan who allowed the Afghan people great freedom. The Mujiheden also flooded Europe with heroin which Britain and America turned a blind eye when they were backing them!

7000 you say? Hmm. Funny how we'd only just started bombing Al-Qaeda training camps by then. And I recall about 3 or 4 missiles actually hitting a city, and only one of them killing more than 3 civilians.
And we trained the Mujhadeen so they could defend themselves against the Russians, not that they could attack us in 20 years time.

Former Member

Originally posted by Whowhere
7000 you say? Hmm. Funny how we'd only just started bombing Al-Qaeda training camps by then. And I recall about 3 or 4 missiles actually hitting a city, and only one of them killing more than 3 civilians.

You should have read John Pilgers excellent article in the Daily Mirror in late 2001 then where he also condemned the use of cluster bombs. Quote:- "if ever there was a weapon designed for terrorism then this is it (cluster bomb) it is designed to kill and maim. I have seen the effects of such weapons such as the Laotian toddler who picked one up and had half her face and arm blown off. Believe me this is now being done in Afghanistan in your name!"

As well as atrocities like that hundreds of thousands of Afghans fled their homes to escape the bombing and went to live in squalid refugee camps on the Afghan border where thousands of them died because of cold and disease!

Former Member

Yes, they are designed to kill and maim, SOLDIERS. Idiot.
They weren't used in cities, they were used in the open against concentrations of troops and tanks.
It is the best weapon we have for getting rid of large quantities of enemy soldiers, apart from tactical nuke. Would you prefer we used those???

And btw, how do they know it was caused by one of our cluster bombs when it could have been one of the MILLIONS of mines left over from the Afghan-Russian war???
IDIOT

Former Member

Originally posted by Whowhere
Yes, they are designed to kill and maim, SOLDIERS. Idiot.
They weren't used in cities, they were used in the open against concentrations of troops and tanks.
It is the best weapon we have for getting rid of large quantities of enemy soldiers, apart from tactical nuke. Would you prefer we used those???

And btw, how do they know it was caused by one of our cluster bombs when it could have been one of the MILLIONS of mines left over from the Afghan-Russian war???
IDIOT

Whowhere, it is easy, American bombs are all weapons of Mass destruction. Iraqi or Al Quadia bombs are hurled or launced by peace loving freedom fighters.

Former Member

Originally posted by Whowhere
Yes, they are designed to kill and maim, SOLDIERS. Idiot.
They weren't used in cities, they were used in the open against concentrations of troops and tanks.
It is the best weapon we have for getting rid of large quantities of enemy soldiers, apart from tactical nuke. Would you prefer we used those???

I would have preffered they didnt go to war on Afghanistan at all! They could have easily done a deal with the Taliban and got bin Laden then put him on trial. All the Taliban wanted was the evidence of his involvement in the September 11th attacks!

And btw, how do they know it was caused by one of our cluster bombs when it could have been one of the MILLIONS of mines left over from the Afghan-Russian war???
IDIOT

There were such vast numbers of cluster bombs dropped on Afghanistan that large numbers of them failed to explode and there were confirmed reports of injuries caused by these weapons. Cluster bombs like depleted uranium shells are an inhumane weapon and should never have been used under any circumstances!