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
Mass Anti War Demo in London
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
There will be another mass anti-war demonstration in London on Sunday the 18th of November from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square starting at 1pm. Full details are at www.stopwar.org.uk You can also hear anti-war speakers every Sunday afternoon at speakers corner in Hyde Park.
0
Comments
people, u've made ur point: u don't like the way.
so what the hell is the alternative dammit!
If there's anything more important than my ego around here, i want it caught and shot now
(1) Where are the anti-Osama protests? I must have missed the massive march on Downing Street condemning the attacks on the WTC. Oh, I forgot, all those 'protests' tok place from the comfort of armchairs and computer rooms. Damn easy to claim you could do things better than the current government, isn't it?
(2) Why the 18th? There's a date 7 days earlier that's far more usually associated with wishes for peace.
You're damn right we need a rational code of morality and ethics. But not much progress can be made in that direction while we've still got a majority ranting about gods, devils, souls, and absolute morality, and using an ancient book written by ignorant nomads as a guide.
I hope a bomb drops straight on the lot of you, I honestly do.
I'll die before I surrender.
Hello everybody.
I've been reading the threads on this discussion board with much interest. To tell the truth I find the level of most people's anger quite frightening. That guy that just spends his life posting links to disturbing US-propoganda images and videos is strange. Has he got nothng actually to say on any of these points? Posting links to other people's work seems a bit lazy.
The pro-war people rightfully point out that the peaceniks haven't come up with any real workable alternatives for the bombing of Afghanistan. What's the alternative, they scream.
Well, fair enough. Here's where I stand. I don't like what the Americans are doing right now. In fact, I'm not sure they know what they're doing. Oh to be a fly on the wall in the Pentagon right now.
The tactics seem to change from week to week. Carpet bombing was not an option we were told in the first week or so. This has obviously changed. Who is Bush fighting now? Originally it was Bin Laden and his cohorts. Now it's the Taliban. If the Syrians continue to object to the US tactics, will he declare war on them too? Muslim distaste for the Aliied bombing continues to grow and no matter how many diplomatic tours Blair makes of the middle east, this isn't going to change.
And yes, you all cry, what's the alternative? I don't know. But seeing as you have all the answers, what should Bush do next? Send more ground troops in? What if the Taliban fights back, like they were reported to have done on October 20 when the Delta Force soldiers went in, wounding some of them? What if US soldiers start heading home in body bags? What if a number of other Muslim states in the area do join the Taliban?
And humour me here. Don't just answer that this isn't going to happen. What if?
And the big question: when is this war "won"?
Does it start and end with Bin Laden's head?
Does it involve overthrowing the Taliban completely?
Does it involve ensuring democratic elections are held in Afghanistan?
What happens to the Northern Alliance once they become dispensable to the Allies?
Is the war on terror going to move onto other terrorist zones? Are ETA an enemy of us all? The IRA?
As you can see, peaceniks might not be able to offer all the answers, but there are a number of questions the warmongers can't answer too. But hey. Give it a go.
LG
> the goal posts move, so I don't know
Does it start and end with Bin Laden's head?
>that would be a start but not the end
Does it involve overthrowing the Taliban completely?
>I hope so
Does it involve ensuring democratic elections are held in Afghanistan?
>again I hope so
What happens to the Northern Alliance once they become dispensable to the Allies?
>easy one this, we bomb them (not joking it will happen)
Is the war on terror going to move onto other terrorist zones? Are ETA an enemy of us all? The IRA?
>I hope we carry on the war against terror, but I doubt it, Bush's poodle Blair wouldn't want to hurt the peace loving IRA for instance
peacechild
Peace through superior firepower
[This message has been edited by peacechild (edited 06-11-2001).]
carpet bombing wasnt an option in the first week because we were bombing inside cities/towns and against specific sites. We have now started bombing the front lines and trenches of the taliban forces..Large dumb bombs get this job done and as these areas arent inhabited by civilians there no problem with innocents dying.
The Taliban are just a side issue, albeit a large side issue at the moment. They made themselves a target by protecting bin Laden. If they had given him up to international courts, as the UN has been asking for the past 2 years, then we wouldnt have dropped a single bomb on Afghanistan. If the syrians object to our policies then thats fair enough but if they continue to sponsor terrorist groups then they should be marked down as a future target. It doesnt matter what muslims think of the bombings at the moment, they will change their minds when they see that we will rebuilt afghanistan afterwards(so long as blair/bush keep to their word).
What should we do next? We should send in ground troops and allow them to do their job. Sending in 30 delta force against a few hundred taliban and you are bound to get some injuries.
What if Americans start coming home in bags? Well with 92% of Americans behind the action I think they could handle it. They realise that its a choice between soldiers dying in Afghanistan or pregnant mothers, fathers, kids, secretaries, bankers etc dying in US cities.
No idea when this war will be done..We need to have the objectives set down more firmly. The immediate war in Afghanistan will be complete when Bin Laden is captured or dead and his group is destroyed.
The governmental system that may have to be implemented if we get rid of the taliban will be decided by muslim/afghan leaders along with our leaders. I suspect it will be some kind of afghan coalition govt.
When the northern alliance becomes dispensable? Well we dont go to war against a group of people just because they arent needed anymore. Pakistan doesnt want them in govt so who knows but they will certainly be in the negotiations.
ETA and the IRA are both terrorists and therefore enemies of us all. Bombing isnt required because neither the IRA or ETA are being protected by a government and official army firmly defending their country. They can be reached by police and the courts. We need to take extra measures to sort out the situation in both NI and Spain.
LG
Ok perhaps I should have specified the lefties on this forum. There are exceptions but most of them have said that they dont know why this war is wrong and they dont know what else to do but they 'feel' that its not right.
They didn't sit down and think rationally about the longterm goals of fighting back. They wanted to kick some arse. They wanted revenge. This is 'feeling' at it's most obvious.
If that were the case then we would have had attacks on Afghanistan on the 11/12th of Sept. They worked out their response and tried to negotiate with the Taliban for two weeks before deciding to take military action. If it were purely emotional then they would have attacked immediately..The emotional response from many americans was to nuke em all..they didnt and they have around 5500 nukes available. This was not an emotional thing, it was cold and calculating.
But what does this mean? Any country which is seen to be sponsoring terrorism (Israel?) will be a future target?
Basically yes. Of course it depends on your definition of terrorism. The world community needs to set down on paper explicitly, what terrorism is. Of course when I say target, i dont necessarily mean military target. They could be the target of political, economical etc pressure.
I can imagine the Iraqis were hoping for a bit of that too
We never actually told the Iraqis we would rebuild after. Besides...we didnt win the Gulf war anyway.
Do you think this was a mistake then?
Yup it was a half hearted attempt. They should have sent in a LOT more troops. Special forces are all well and good but you cant expect them to take on an army on their lonesome.
How much money, lives and time beofre enough is enough?
This is assuming that large numbers of americans die. I dont think they will. If America commits fully, they can destroy the taliban with ease..political considerations are holding them back. Same goes for Vietname..it was the politics back home rather than the soldiers that lost that war.
But is this possible? Or even likely? Does Bush know what they are?
Im sure someone in the us govt knows but they need to let everyone else know.
Democratically elected? Or would we be replacing one unelected government with another, more preferable one?
I dont see a democratic govt happening in Afghanistan for a long time. Women have been relegated to little more than pets, 85% of them cant read or write. You cant just impose democracy on a virgin country without preparing the people first. Theres going to have to be some kind of interim government and it will be many years before Afghanistan is ready for democracy.
Hoho. Who's naive now?
Well I certainly dont think we will let them into govt. They watch the TV, they know that the US is distancing themselves politically. I think they may well have a presence in any coalition govt though..They are a large group and cant be kept out.
BTW...its good to speak to someone that doesnt resort to name calling..Good to have you here littleguy.
This statement I agree with fully:
That guy that just spends his life posting links to disturbing US-propoganda images and videos is strange.
Balddog: They worked out their response and tried to negotiate with the Taliban for two weeks
Was that the part where Bush was saying "we will not negotiate"?
The immediate war in Afghanistan will be complete when Bin Laden is captured or dead and his group is destroyed.
I find it hard to believe that if somehow Bin Laden is killed/captured tomorrow, Bush will stop all attacks on Afghanistan....
My personal views on the whole thing (in case I haven't fully and clearly explained myself in any other threads:
I think that the Taliban are an evil regiem that should be stopped, but I thought that long before any attack on america, and I think that they should have been stopped long ago. It annoys me that action was only taken against them when america itself was attacked, not even by them but by someone operating in their country.
I think that more conclusive evidence should have been offered before any bombing raids started. I think that there should be a much higher level of transparency throught the entire 'war on terrorism'.
I believe that the 'coalition' of countries is just kissing a certain presidents arse, and that the war against terrorism will only target countries/groups that Bush doesn't like. I think he's going to use it as an excuse to attack his/americas personal enemies.
If Bush, and america, are leading this coalition, which they obviously are, I think they should do more of the diplomatic work. Blair seems to be more deeply involved in actually trying to sort out some sort of solid coalition. At the moment there is America with Britain seeing how far up americas arse she can fit, whilst the other countries in Europe are only saying that the support Bush 'for the time being'.
And as for Bush knowing what he is doing, my link under 'An article for you' sums that up nicely.
I have already posted my thoughts on the bloodthirsty calls from people here in another thread.
He didnt say that until we were already in the war phase and the Taliban offered to talk. They werent even offering to hand him over to the US or the UN but to a friendly Islamic country.. Remember the UN has been trying to extradite him on behalf of the US since 1998 and the taliban have told them to fuck off.
The longer the Taliban hold onto Bin Laden then the more likely they are to be included in the final war goals.
We should have, without a doubt, done something in Afghanistan before Sept 11th but of course the left would have moaned that we were fucking around in another countries culture and no doubt talked about empire. I think you know that would be the response.
Mindless, Why should the evidence have been shown to you personally? Are you that important? NATO and the UN have agreed the evidence is sufficient so im willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The US guys are doing just as much arse kissing as Blair its just that we see more of Blair on TV cos hes our PM..Powell and Rumsfeld have been in the middle east over the last few weeks long with several other important types. We just dont hear much about them. The euro nations have also been doing their part, having mid eastern leaders over here and visiting them.
Didnt say Bush knows what they are doing <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"> I said someone in the US govt does <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
At last someone who agrees with me without the leftie 'war is inherently evil' bias.
I agreed with most of that.
Americans want bin Laden's head. It's that simple. They don't want to think about the world situation logically, or bother thinking about other countries unless those countries directly affect their way of life (e.g. oil shortage or WTC attack etc.) That's why the Taliban still exists. Appalling womens rights issues and freedom of speech restrictions, but still around because no-one resisted/resists them. We didn't care about Afghanistan 2 months ago because they had no direct influence on our way of life. Goodness, the number of Americans who could point out Afghanistan on a map you could count on one hand. That's a symptom of not knowing (or caring) about the world in which we live.
So maybe bombing Afghanistan will remove the Taliban and al Qaeda. Great. But I agree with littleguy's point that the world is not perfect and there are plenty of other terrorist organisations out there (state sponsored or otherwise) that disagree with the West and our way of life. And so where do we draw the line? Who will decide who is a terrorist and who is legitimate? Do we want a global 'police force'? Think of the trouble (not war, admittedly) we have in the EU trying to agree about policies. And we're all 'civilised' countries. Imagine trying to police the whole world. What if a population were to democratically elect a Taliban style government? Unlikely you say?, but entirely possible nonetheless.
The global community will decide whos a terrorist and who isnt. We are constantly told we live in a global village so we will have to make some choices. We already have a global police force..the USA. They have been present in almost every dispute in the past 100 years..They dont do this for gain, no matter what some say. They do it because they are fundamentally 'the good guys'.
They saved Europe three times this century..When they didnt even have to step off their continent.
Fair point and we're grateful, hence we are supporting them in this mess.
[This message has been edited by Kentish Man (edited 06-11-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Kentish Man (edited 07-11-2001).]
When i say global community I mean it literally..Every country that wants to come to talks can do so.
They may have had benefits from certain wars but those benefits werent the sole reason they entered the wars...I dont understand the war films reference..America is directly responsible for the fall of the nazis, not solely responsible but without them we would have lost. America is solely responsible for holding back the Soviet version of communism, although some on this forum will argue that was a bad thing <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
You point out Vietnam..Tell me what the US gained from entering that war on the behalf of democracy? What did they hope to gain by the war?
Well thats debatable: its been argued that the only reason we won the war was because Hitler was stupid enough to go for Russia and he opened up the Eastern front. And America only got involved after Pearl Harbo(u)r. But, yes, they did pretty much end the war with their A-bombs.
(War films was only that the way they present themselves sometimes different from reality - U-571?)
Don't know enough about it. But my point was, that that war was started not out of any real domestic risk, but due to a 'Big Brother' approach to global government; which is where certain pro-war posters seem to be heading.
[This message has been edited by Kentish Man (edited 06-11-2001).]
War films are just that, films. Entertainment..Unfortunately our film industry is such shit which means we cant do any of our own films..Anyone who takes any movie to be the truth is an ignorant fool..
Mindless, No country in the history of the world has ever gone to war for completely selfless reasons. No government would consider sacrificing the lives of its young men unless the country was going to gain.
If that were the case then we would have had attacks on Afghanistan on the 11/12th of Sept. They worked out their response and tried to negotiate with the Taliban for two weeks before deciding to take military action. If it were purely emotional then they would have attacked immediately..The emotional response from many americans was to nuke em all..they didnt and they have around 5500 nukes available. This was not an emotional thing, it was cold and calculating.
Now you're comparing apples with oranges. When you were talking about emotional lefties, you mentioned the ones on these boards, ie, joe publics, not decision-makers or public figures. However, for the pro-war supporters, you're now referring to the US politicians and military people - the ones who actually made the choice to wait 2 weeks.
My point, is that left to the American people, Afghanistan probably would have been nuked september 12. Average Americans, not unlike some of the ones on these boards, and other warmongers are equally likely to follow their hearts, emotions snd feelings as much as anyone who is intuitively anti-war.
The world community needs to set down on paper explicitly, what terrorism is.
Even the thought of this makes me tired. Who was it that said you can't declare war on an abstract noun?
But is this possible? Or even likely? Does Bush know what they are?
Im sure someone in the us govt knows but they need to let everyone else know.
See, this is where we're not going to agree.
I really don't think the Americans have worked out their gameplan yet. Some of this is because there are unkowns they can't account for, but the level of intelligence that they have at the moment seems to be a bit embarassing.
Oh, and Baldog, you seem rational and intelligent. What do you really honestly think of Bush? I ask, because I find it difficult to see how anyone young, non-American and smart could see him as anything other than , at best, a bit of a lucky idiot. Just curious.
BTW...its good to speak to someone that doesnt resort to name calling..Good to have you here littleguy.
Thanks.
Ok point taken. Youre right.
Ok how about a war on those who practice terrorism rather than the idea of terrorism which is likely to be impossible to eradicate.
Well I have no doubt hes an intelligent man. You dont get far in politics if you dont have at least some semblance of a brain. He seems slow and dull witted at times but that may just be his personality. Hes not a great man but he may well be a great president. It really doesnt matter if a President is a moron, they have tons of advisors to tell them what to do and they have to get everything through congress. People blame him personally for various stupid decisions but they fail to realise that there are probably dozens of people behind each decision made by the President.
Anyway if the only other choice was Al Gore then id take Bush any day of the week.
Al Gore and George Bush on a sinking boat. Who gets saved?
The nation.
and why not? seems to be that the West has done it before. we never declared war, but we attempted to contain an idea through the use of force. vietnam? korea?
yes people, communism. (in case you were still wondering). might make for some interesting historical parallels.
If there's anything more important than my ego around here, i want it caught and shot now
Several of you have mentioned the rebuilding of Afganistan! What do you mean? There is nothing to rebuild it was a shit hole through decades of war before Sep 11th.
Who will pay for this rebuilding? Are you suggetsing the UK should put it's hand in its pocket. I'd rather my taxes went on improving the health service, Transport infrastructure, education system and defensive force.
How many zillions do you think it would cost to rebuild Afganistan?
How many zillions will it cost to rebuild NYC? How many times will we need to do this?
Unless we act sensibly after the conflict we will just set ourselves up again. When TB talks about the 'New World Order' it would be nice to think that he really meant it. This would mean a whole different attitude towards the middle east and the actions of israel in particular. Somehow I can;t see that happenning...
I didnt mean rebuilt after we have knocked whats left down. We need to rebuilt what the soviets knocked down. Afghanistan was a pretty kickass country back in 79.
If this whole coalition chips in, which I believe is the plan, then it shouldnt cost that much...Our government wastes all our tax money anyway so why not put it where its needed.
If we dont help the Afghans then theres a good chance that the health service, transport infrastructure and defensive force may well be wiped out by increased terrorist attacks.
P
I think you are going over the top a little. Nobody is talking about getting Afghanistan up to UK standards. Nobody is talking about railway networks or anything of the sort. We just need to make sure that they arent living in their own shit surrounded by rubble and more shit. What we must do is work out a decent way of getting the millions of people on the borders back to their homes..Lots of logistical work there.
Id be perfectly happy to have a small tax increase to help rebuild Afghanistan.
Oh and you talk as if having IDS as PM is a bad thing? <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
Did not mean to, I was just suggesting that putting up tax means that the government loses the next election, that means IDS win, not saying if that is good or bad, too early to tell with IDS at the moment.
P
(the protests are played down in a bid to keep people happy, ignorant and trigger happy)