If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Basically somthing like DJP said, with the added proviso that they had a mandate in 1991 a war which is still on-going but with a ceasefire in place. If the terms of that ceasefire (disarm) are breached then the US/UK still have the same mandate.
Like I said, which ones are they breaching?
And what specifically is the 'international law' which prohibits invading countries?
Obviously, like Americans, the Terrorists don't have a sense of irony...
And yes, the protest got a few message across, one of which was that war won't be acceptable to the electorate. The other side of that is a positive one for Saddam - continue to bluster and we still won't support action against you.
Which is a worry, unless a credible alternative to force can be found.
I have a no war solution. All the peace protesters can go to Iraq and conduct marches through baghdad. Sit down protests and everything. Saddam would never use force against western peace protesters. Think about 10,000,000 million protesters shutting down the evil saddam government. I bet the normal iraqis would than rise up and topple the government by peace. If you all set up a web site to get this going I will send at least 50 dollars to send you on your way. "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time" "Peace in our time"
"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes."
-- Winston Churchill, Writing as president of the Air Council 1919 in reference to gassing the Kurds
-- Winston Churchill to Asquith, 1910
I agree Winston, I agree. . .
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
-- Winston Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937
We really should destroy Iraq to ensure lebensraum is made for the Chosen master race in Israel. . .
:rolleyes:
I knew you would see the irony.
The funniest though was a man who hi-jacked the show to rant about the legalisation of cannabis (For medical reasons) and how the US Government should spend more time on that than they do on Iraq....I've never seen more stoney faced politicians! he he
Surely Sarcasm. But, I would love to see it happen. To be a fly on the wall in Saddams palace when 16 mil protesters cross his border. Of course he would never let them in and would probably kill or imprison them all but wow what a statement. A peace crusade!!!
It would be impressive, for sure.
But then that would take real courage. It's not so easily to have a dissenting voice when you are staring down the barrel of a gun
JOHN PILGER ON WHY WE SHOULD TAKE TO THE STREETS TOMORROW
From Mirror - 14/02/2003 (1562 words)
JOHN PILGER
TOMORROW one of the most important public events in memory will take place in central London.
It is not possible to overstate the significance and urgency of the march and demonstration against an unprovoked British and American attack on Iraq, a nation with whom we have no quarrel and who offer us no threat.
The urgency is the saving of lives. First, let us stop calling it a "war". The last time "war" was used in the Gulf was in 1991 when the truth was buried with more than 200,000 people. Attacking a 70-mile line of trenches, three American brigades, operating at night, used 60-ton armoured earthmovers to bury alive teenage Iraqi conscripts, including the wounded and those surrendering and retreating. Survivors were slaughtered from the air. The helicopter gunship pilots called it a "turkey shoot".
Of the 148 Americans who died, a quarter of them were killed by Americans. Most of the British were killed by Americans. This was known as "friendly fire". The civilians who were killed, whose deaths were never recorded by the American military because it was "not policy", were "collateral damage".
Today, after 13 years of an economic blockade that has been compared with a medieval siege, Iraq is defenceless, no matter the discovery of an odd missile that can reach barely 90 miles. Its ragtag army is woefully under-equipped and awaiting its fate, along with a civilian population of whom 42 per cent are children. They are stricken. Even the export of British manufactured vaccines meant to protect Iraqi infants from diphtheria and yellow fever has been restricted. The vaccines, say the Blair government, are "capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction".
This is the nation upon which the Bush gang says it will rain down 800 missiles within the space of two days. "Shock and awe" the Pentagon calls its "strategy". Meanwhile the weapons inspectors and their morose Swedish leader go about their treasure hunt and a cartoon show is hosted in the UN by General Colin Powell (who rose to the top by covering up the notorious My Lai massacre in Vietnam).
September 11 2001 was their big opportunity. On September 12 Donald Rumsfeld wanted to use the Twin Towers tragedy as an excuse to attack Iraq, which was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell argued that "public opinion has to be prepared". Afghanistan was the easier option and they were planning to attack it anyway.
Since September 11 America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has repudiated the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, with the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary" - incredibly Geoffrey Hoon, on Blair's behalf, has said exactly the same.
Does anyone believe the Prime Minister any more? During his interview last Thursday with the BBC's Jeremy Paxman, Blair lied once again that UN weapons inspectors were "thrown out" of Iraq by the regime in 1998. He knows the truth: that they were withdrawn when it was discovered the CIA had planted spies among them in order to gather intelligence for the subsequent Anglo-American bombing of Iraq in December 1998.
I MEAN," said Blair last week, "(the threat of Iraq's undiscovered weapons of mass destruction) is what our intelligence services are telling us and it's difficult because, you know, either they're simply making the whole thing up
Making it up, indeed. On February 7 Downing Street had to apologise when it was revealed that its latest dossier seeking to justify war - "Iraq: its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation" - was lifted word for word, including the grammatical and spelling mistakes, from an article written by an American student 10 years ago. As David Edwards of Media Lens has pointed out, "the only changes involved the doctoring of passages to make the report more ominous: a claim that Iraq was 'aiding opposition groups' was changed to a claim that Iraq was 'supporting terrorist organisations'." Like Bush, Blair lies that "we do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq". An investigation by America's National Security Council, which advises Bush, "found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. On February 5 a Ministry of Defence document, leaked to the BBC, revealed that British intelligence had told Blair there was "no current link" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Blair has even denied seeing this crucial report.
A peaceful solution in the Middle East is only possible when the threat of an attack is lifted and a total ban on so-called weapons of mass destruction and arms sales is imposed throughout the region, on Israel as well as Iraq. The economic blockade on the people of Iraq should end immediately and justice for the Palestinians become a priority.
The power of public opinion, both moral and political power, is far greater than many people realise. That's why Blair fears it and why, through the inept Tessa Jowell, he tried to ban tomorrow's demonstration. He fears it because if the voice of the people threatens the house of cards he has built on his obsession with Iraq and America, it may well threaten his political life and make mockery of the Anglo-American "coalition" and deny the Bush gang its fig leaf.
Should that happen, American public opinion, now stirring heroically after the most sustained brainwashing campaign for half a century, may even stop the Bush gang in its tracks. As of yesterday 42 American cities had passed resolutions condemning an attack.
Your point is what, that I have no courage because I don't protest?
Like I said right at the start, when these same people protest openly about the Iraq regime's actions, I will listen. When the Socialist Worker's Party (or whoever) organises a march against the Iraqi regime, I may listen to their views on this matter.
All the time they preach the "No war at any cost" mantra, I'm not so interested. There has to be an ultimate deterrence, we should never rule something out completely, especially if the opponent to your position won't rule anything out. You have to be prepared to go that extra step in order to achieve your aims, otherwise you will just get trodded on.
Added to that is something which was raised earlier. What DJP said about the "usual suspects" being involved is very relavant. There is a certain sector of our community who would protest about the proposed war regardless of who or what we were facing. They are the same groups who protested about the Falklands, Afghanistan, the First Gulf War etc. They protest about interventionist policies, they protest about non-interventionist policies. If it's being done by our Govt, they protest against it. It kind of puts the position and the number of marchers in perspective.
It doesn't?
Putting everything you believe down in writing, opening yourself up to be ridiculed for what you believe. Putting yourself in the position where many of the "Truths" you base your life around dismissed and disproved doesn't take courage?
Perhaps you should ask some of those who don't post in this forum if that is just because they find politics boring, or if it is partly because they are intimidated...
Certainly in my time on these boards you would find that it's been almost a 50/50 split.
Courage doesn't just mean physically putting your life on the line you know.
True, but I find it hard to make much comparison between the kind of courage required to address physical fear and that required to post in a place where you can use a pseudonym and hide who you are. Skydiving takes far more courage than posting on the internet, and I don't generally rate skydiving as a courageous act.
But many on here (and no I didn't include you in that) seem to find it easier to criticise than to state an opinion on an alternative. Look how long it took people to respond to the "Options" thread - we saw a similar response when the Afghanistan question was being raised.
As I said, some people find it hard to place their opinion up there to be shot down. To me that shows a certain lack of courage.
But please, you really shouldn't get that confused with the courage to put your life on the line. I certainly hadn't.
It wasn't me that made that comparison.
If anything my "that would take real courage" comment only reinforced that message. I think I was pointing out the difference between protesting in a tolerant society and protesting in an oppressive one.
Perhaps that wasn't clear enough. Though I'm not sure how anyone could have missed it...
You can also be courageous at non-physical levels. Your life or physical integrity might not be in danger when you speak up your beliefs, but your 'personal' integrity or even honour is. To speak up against the mainstream, or specially to against one's government or country's policy can be very courageous. We all see all too often how those who dare raise questions about their country's ethics or policy (or rather the government in question) are usually labelled traitors, collaborators, Chamberlains and other such names. Those people who marched in New York to protest against a war on Iraq are certainly very courageous.
Resullts?
Support for the war is now at 70% in America. It was only in the 50% for the Gulf War. France tried to bluff and lost standing within the governments of the EU and NATO as well as the US.
I don't believe that war means a cut and dried solution. Just that it is the best solution available to us now.
I'm not suggesting that people won't come up with a credible alternative because Saddam will still be in power. I'm suggesting that whilst they claim to want to save lives, the diplmatic solution is also costing lives. I don't suggest from this that war will ultimately save lives, just that if lives are to be lost it would be better to have a conclusion rather than just the protracted situation we have at the moment.
I accept that warfare means that we increase the risk of attacks on us, in the short term. Put it this way, did our forefathers shy away from war because we might be attacked? No, it just made them more determined not to fail.
~~~~~~~~~~~
As an aside, your suggestion of potential deaths "at home" may actually put another spin on the peace protestors motives. Not so much concerned about saving lives abroad, as their own
Although I know that's not what you intended...