Not in my name

Sand

Looks like the difference between "overwhelming public opinion" and even semi accurate measures of public opinion is further underlined.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1087545,00.html

If anything support for the coalitions efforts in Iraq seems to be increasing among UK citizens, not decreasing as the anti-war marchers will no doubt attempt to lead the wider world to believe. Same for the welcome George Bush will receive. The majority appear to welcome his visit, and those who view the USA negatively seem to be a distinct minority. No doubt though the people who show up at the protests will take up all the column inches. The same for the editorials.... "overwhelming public opinion" seems to mean "me and my friends think...." more and more these days.

Oh well.

P.S. will all those arguing that Blair shouldnt have gone to war becuase of the massive anti war protests - wholly antidemocratic - now agree that he was right to go to war because of the way public opinion now agrees with the war?

secret_squirrel

hmmmm very interesting way they had of phrasing their poll.

From Guardian
The survey shows that public opinion in Britain is overwhelmingly pro-American with 62% of voters believing that the US is "generally speaking a force for good, not evil, in the world". It explodes the conventional political wisdom at Westminster that Mr Bush's visit will prove damaging to Tony Blair. Only 15% of British voters agree with the idea that America is the "evil empire" in the world.

Given the choice of those 2 (maybe there were more?) Most ppl would choose the former even if they didnt necessarily agree with it entirely.
Now if the latter had been something along the lines of is "Dubya misguided and/or a Looney Tune" then the poll might have worked out differently.
More british people would tend to look upon the US favourably than not methinks.

monument

Originally posted by Sand
Looks like the difference between "overwhelming public opinion" and even semi accurate measures of public opinion is further underlined.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1087545,00.html

If anything support for the coalitions efforts in Iraq seems to be increasing among UK citizens, not decreasing as the anti-war marchers will no doubt attempt to lead the wider world to believe. Same for the welcome George Bush will receive. The majority appear to welcome his visit, and those who view the USA negatively seem to be a distinct minority. No doubt though the people who show up at the protests will take up all the column inches. The same for the editorials.... "overwhelming public opinion" seems to mean "me and my friends think...." more and more these days.

Oh well.

P.S. will all those arguing that Blair shouldnt have gone to war becuase of the massive anti war protests - wholly antidemocratic - now agree that he was right to go to war because of the way public opinion now agrees with the war?

This only proves the age old belief that the majority of the public can and do change their view on things very easily. You have to keep in mind of things like how the majority of the public were not behind those who made Ireland into an independent state until it happened.

There’s a sadder side to it also, the only reports of death or injury is coming from the US lead side – nobody other then them are getting killed? – Well that’s what the public are seeing. The US restarted bombing from the air – by right it should have been the top story on most news papers/channels/sites/programs.

It’s well known that more the one owner/part owner of some newspapers and stations effect their editorial views – and one of the owners views are very much so pro war.

mike65

True enough but NOT The Guardian which apart from one or two "licensed" desenters was anti the war.

Mike.

secret_squirrel

thats why I was surprised at the way the guardian had phrased thier poll......

Redleslie

"Good" and "Evil". Gimme a break.

The 60 letters to Bush in The Guardian are far more interesting. I like 12 year old Mickey's one ("You have no idea what you are doing. You're killing loads of people, and that is not excluding your own nation too. ") and the Baghdad Blogger's. Frederick Forsythe's is absolutely terrible (he doesn't seem to realise that Ceaucescu stayed in Buck Pal and was given an honorary knighthood) as is Harold Pinter's. Richard Dawkins seems fairly angry.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1087591,00.html

monument

Originally posted by mike65
True enough but NOT The Guardian which apart from one or two "licensed" desenters was anti the war.

Mike.

Yes, I know the Guardian is anti war. It also has independent editorial, and it is owned by a trust - the way media outlets should be.

I wonder how many copies are sold per day/week in Ireland?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Looks like the difference between "overwhelming public opinion" and even semi accurate measures of public opinion is further underlined.

As is the distinction between a genuine regard for either public opinion or democracy, and a opportunistic, self-serving one, like yours.

From August 2002 right up to the beginning of the war in March 2003 (with a very brief interruption in October), more people in UK polls were against the prospective war in Iraq than were for it, sometimes by margins much bigger than the one in the poll you mention (link). I don't recall hearing you championing public opinion then. But as soon as a poll appears showing a majority approving of the war ... Hey, democracy in action! Power to the people! Like I said, totally self-serving.

I suppose it fits in with your belief that leaders should lie to the public as much as they feel like as long as it's for whatever they (the leaders) feel is 'the greater good'. As in this case, it's nice when a (slim) majority of the public seems to approve afterwards, but it's actually irrelevant since what's done is done.

P.S. will all those arguing that Blair shouldnt have gone to war becuase of the massive anti war protests - wholly antidemocratic - now agree that he was right to go to war because of the way public opinion now agrees with the war? [/B]

How were the anti war protests antidemocratic? As I've pointed out, they reflected the view of the majority at the time. Are you saying that the majority should shut up and simply believe their leaders when they say "don't worry, most of you might agree this was a good idea at some undefined point in the future"?

Again, I can't help but pick up that you've really got no taste for democracy at all. But I suppose you are a George Bush fan, after all.

Sand

From August 2002 right up to the beginning of the war in March 2003 (with a very brief interruption in October), more people in UK polls were against the prospective war in Iraq than were for it, sometimes by margins much bigger than the one in the poll you mention (link). I don't recall hearing you championing public opinion then. But as soon as a poll appears showing a majority approving of the war ... Hey, democracy in action! Power to the people! Like I said, totally self-serving.

No, I believe the war to have served a greater good, whether a majority of Britons agree or not is not a requisite of my beliefs - yet I had to listen to claims that"overwhelming public opinion" was against the war, that Blair and co were dictators etc etc and ignoring the wishes of their people, that in attempting to create a democratic Iraq they were ignoring democracy in their own countries. All well and good.

But now the tide has changed - no doubt opposition to the war is now only a matter of principal and well hear less and less about the way the elected leaders ran roughshod over the "overwhelming public opinion". Self serving? Yeah, it is.

I suppose it fits in with your belief that leaders should lie to the public as much as they feel like as long as it's for whatever they (the leaders) feel is 'the greater good'. As in this case, it's nice when a (slim) majority of the public seems to approve afterwards, but it's actually irrelevant since what's done is done.

Actually its a demonstration of how fickle public opinion is....attempting to base a policy around the latest opinion poll or which way the editorials or angry young students are marching is crazy - and yet that was how policy should be formed according to many angry young students. Blair and Bush will be judged as being successful or not successful in their respective elections, like every single government and administration before them.

How were the anti war protests antidemocratic?

You misunderstand - I was repeating the oft held view that to not go along with them was anti-democratic when in fact they were always a minority, and that support for them was shallow and short term. Not that protests in and of themselves are anti-democratic, though they are often manipulated to present a false image of the majoritys views - witness the protests over Bush when the majority do not share their vitrol for Bush, yet the opposite is implied by the media in their treatment of the protests.

Again, I can't help but pick up that you've really got no taste for democracy at all. But I suppose you are a George Bush fan, after all.

Im about as much a George Bush fan as you are a fan of the old Stalinist nostalgists who are running the anti-war movement you agree with.

Oh thats right, youre not responsible for who shares your views on any particular issue whereas I am.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
But now the tide has changed - no doubt opposition to the war is now only a matter of principal and well hear less and less about the way the elected leaders ran roughshod over the "overwhelming public opinion". Self serving? Yeah, it is.

I've no problem repeating till the cows come home that - as the graph I linked to clearly shows - Blair did go against majority public opinion in the run-up to the war. That's just being consistent. Incidentally, this cross-Europe poll (from this BBC story) shows that almost 70% of Britons opposed 'military intervention without fresh UN support', which is exactly what happened - an 'overwhelming majority' indeed.



The point is Sand, that you obviously don't care about public opinion and you seem to be slagging off anti-war people because they do.

You misunderstand - I was repeating the oft held view that to not go along with them was anti-democratic when in fact they were always a minority

No. They. Weren't. Look at the graph I linked to again.

witness the protests over Bush when the majority do not share their vitrol for Bush, yet the opposite is implied by the media in their treatment of the protests.

I've yet to see any media outlet imply that the majority of people in the UK support protests against Bush in London, for two obvious reasons - public opinion has changed, as anyone can see from the polls, and the size of the protests will be smaller. So I can only assume that you're offended that the media are covering these protests at all. So when it suits you, majority rule should mean majority tyranny?

Im about as much a George Bush fan as you are a fan of the old Stalinist nostalgists who are running the anti-war movement you agree with.

Oh thats right, youre not responsible for who shares your views on any particular issue whereas I am.

Nice try. I'm pretty sure I've never expressed any fondness for Stalinism on these boards - quite the opposite - but you're in such constant agreement with just about everything George says and does that I just assumed ... oh well, apologies if you feel slighted.

DadaKopf

Richard Dawkins seems fairly angry.

Wow, Dawkins is so cool! He's so cool he was on Terry Christian's late night chat show last night!

Talkin' bout God and stuff.

Hmm? Oh, yeah, war's bad. Not in my name.

Went to see Alexander Cockburn speak in Trinity tonight. He figures the US's split in opinion on the war is tosh. The pro-war people versus those who wanted to go through the UN (only to a very minor extent totally pacifist). In the media at least. Point was: the UN is really just America, so the argument is just a diversion from the real argument.

JUS' SAYIN'!

Hobbes

· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,002 adults aged 18 and over by telephone between November 14-16, 2003. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults.

What exactly does that mean?

A recent poll I saw over 60% do not like or want bush in the UK.

Also I wonder how many of the 100,000 war protesters were in that poll of 1,000 people?

Originally posted by Hobbes

Also I wonder how many of the 100,000 war protesters were in that poll of 1,000 people?

Well that would be irrelevant, as you get a representative sample of the population first and then you interview them.
It's not a case of asking people to give their views first and then say "ok you can be in the opinion poll because you have the right opinion"

mm

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Hobbes
What exactly does that mean?

A recent poll I saw over 60% do not like or want bush in the UK.

Also I wonder how many of the 100,000 war protesters were in that poll of 1,000 people?

Polling agencies usually don't have the resources to get a representative sample from around the country so therefore they weight the results according to the known distribution of various factors in population as a whole in order to remove biases in the polled sample.

Hobbes

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Polling agencies usually don't have the resources to get a representative sample from around the country so therefore they weight the results according to the known distribution of various factors in population as a whole in order to remove biases in the polled sample.

So in other words they make stuff up?

The quantity polled is extremly low to actually form a proper opinion.

ixoy

The best way to get polls in your favour isn't to try and rig the pollers - it's to bias the question, as was done here.

For example, I generally believe the U.S. is a pretty decent country, so I'd be more leaning towards the "Yes" vote in the question. However, in the context of the invasion of Iraq and - broadly - Bush's foreign policies of late, I'd be a definite "No". But the question didn't ask me that and so a distorted answer appears. So I still believe it doesn't reflect people's opinion of Iraq where even his own citizens now, in a slim majority, question the validity of the current US occupation.

shotamoose

Isn't it that they do a random sample, compare that sample in terms of age and gender with the population as a whole, and adjust the findings accordingly?

Because with a small random sample of 1,002 (or whatever), you could for example end up with 55% men to 45% women, whereas the real national distribution is more even. This could lead to a misleading result - especially in topics such as the Iraq war where there were pronounced gender differences - if results are not adjusted.

Seems reasonable to me.

sceptre

Originally posted by shotamoose
Isn't it that they do a random sample, compare that sample in terms of age and gender with the population as a whole, and adjust the findings accordingly?

Pretty much

SkepticOne

Originally posted by ixoy
The best way to get polls in your favour isn't to try and rig the pollers - it's to bias the question, as was done here.

For example, I generally believe the U.S. is a pretty decent country, so I'd be more leaning towards the "Yes" vote in the question. However, in the context of the invasion of Iraq and - broadly - Bush's foreign policies of late, I'd be a definite "No". But the question didn't ask me that and so a distorted answer appears. So I still believe it doesn't reflect people's opinion of Iraq where even his own citizens now, in a slim majority, question the validity of the current US occupation.

Yes, but I would not conclude that the poll is biased as such. The problem is when people draw invalid conclusions from the results. For example as you point out, concluding that because most people don't regard the US as evil, that therefore they were in favour of the Iraq war. The two issues are only loosely connected. All the polls tell you is the result of asking a specific question.

Wook

people, people haven't you heard 'we should just move on' .....

Sand

I've no problem repeating till the cows come home that - as the graph I linked to clearly shows - Blair did go against majority public opinion in the run-up to the war. That's just being consistent.

But now the polls are going against the view - hence the protestors are the anti-democratic forces by that reasoning, whereas Blair has been shown to correct in hindsight - a statesman leading his people rather than simply following them. Will you just as happily embrace that view and promote it? I doubt it.

The point is Sand, that you obviously don't care about public opinion and you seem to be slagging off anti-war people because they do.

My beliefs arent dependant on which way the latest public opinion poll is swinging - if the polls showed a 99% wholly against the war and hateful of its instigators Id still believe the liberation to be a good thing.

Ill just enjoy the contortions of people trying to say why Blair was so wrong to go against the polls prior to the war, and yet the protestors now *arent* wrong to go against the polls .... and theyve an equivalent obligation to those polls - feck all to my mind but it was the position of the anti-war protestors that polls such as you mentioned were a strong argument against the war and Blairs part in it, that Blair should go with the poll findings and not go ahead with the war.

Now that the tide has turned Ill enjoy the justifications for why the protest movement doesnt have to fall into line with the opinion found by polling, or why the polls dont imply that Blair was wholly justified in going ahead with the war.

Ill also enjoy people trying to say why going with the latest poll isnt mob rule, or where we draw the line on this new form of democracy...should we have reality tv style phone voting to decide on the budget, or should we have trial by media with a quick vote at the end to decide if the rapist should be merely horsewhipped or castrated and killed? Ah, but thats not what you meant when you said I didnt care about the forces of democracy inherent in poll findings- you meant that they should go along with the polls, when they suit you, but not when they dont. Sure thing, I can see why youd like that system.

But why not stick with the established form.....every 4-7 years we elect representitives to run the government so we can get on with our lives, if they do a bad job we sack them, if they do a good job we keep them on, and they do their best to anticipate what well think of their actions when it comes to the next election.

It aint perfect but it sure beats the hell out of mob rule and trial by media.

I've yet to see any media outlet imply that the majority of people in the UK support protests against Bush in London, for two obvious reasons - public opinion has changed, as anyone can see from the polls, and the size of the protests will be smaller. So I can only assume that you're offended that the media are covering these protests at all. So when it suits you, majority rule should mean majority tyranny?

Not even one....Okay heres one that makes it sound like everyone in Britain bar blair and his closest friends spit when they hear Bushes name.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,1087320,00.html

Why does Blair have to defend the visit when the majority have no ill feelings towards the visitor? Why are all the anti-war types given so many column inches when the facts you mention regarding the majority having no problem with his visit arent even mentioned - apparently so as to rob the piece of any context or balance?

Nice try. I'm pretty sure I've never expressed any fondness for Stalinism on these boards - quite the opposite - but you're in such constant agreement with just about everything George says and does that I just assumed ... oh well, apologies if you feel slighted.

LOL - No its delightful that you imply that because I agree with Bushes policy of intervening against the likes of Saddam that I agree with all his policies, that I am in fact in favour of Bush rather than the particular policy, and when I show you how silly that is by using you and one particular view you share with the protest organisers as an example, you act all offended. Thats just priceless:)

This despite us having a thread about protectionism and free trade and its benefits for developing nations - With myself being in favour of free trade, how does this sit with Bushes protectionism? Or my views on religion? Bush views it as central to his life and his politics whereas I would probably combust if I entered a Church and I strongly believe in a division between Church and State, or his decision to expand the nuclear armoury of the US when I view it as more than enough to wipe out life as it is? Or his respect for Kyoto and the enviroment in general which is at odds with my own views?

Ah but yes, I agree that the powerful nations of the world should act against tyrants like Saddam so hence I agree with everything Bush says and does. Youre either with us or against us, right Shot? You and Bush might have more in common than you think:)

gurramok

ITV's teletext poll(p347) of 5,000 people asking the question - 'Is Bush welcome here'

so far indicates that 57% oppose the Bush visit to the UK.

So which poll do you believe ?

Sand, Blair did not get elected at the last election on the basis of waging war against another country, it was not in Labours manifesto, not even mentioned in pre-election promises.

Originally posted by gurramok
ITV's teletext poll(p347) of 5,000 people asking the question - 'Is Bush welcome here'

so far indicates that 57% oppose the Bush visit to the UK.

So which poll do you believe ?

I wouldn't believe that one anyhow, it operates the same way as the pop Idol phone polls you can ring in a vote as often as you want;)

mm

klong

another poll i saw today was on sky- people with sky digital could vote on a similar question and last i saw, the results were 60% IN FAVOUR of the visit, 40% AGAINST.

but, as has been said already, it can't really count as you can vote as often as you like

No as far as I'm aware , you can only vote once on Sky digitals Sky news polls-unless you go to another digibox, which is less likely than using your phone to vote often in a phone poll.
But I'm open to correction on that.

mm

klong

fair enough, dont have a digibox myself so i cant really be quoting with authority on the workings of the red button!

reading this thread, im in agreement when i see that the anti-war protestors get a huge amount of coverage. Got blanket coverage on sky today. one thought which struck me when seeing the images of the bombings in istanbul and news of the protest march was...what are the protestors views/opinions on the bombings in turkey? wouldnt the bombings and so on have continued had the invasions of afghanistan and iraq not taken place, and on a much greater scale?

hmm?

monument

Originally posted by Sand
My beliefs arent dependant on which way the latest public opinion poll is swinging - if the polls showed a 99% wholly against the war and hateful of its instigators Id still believe the liberation to be a good thing.

A good thing for whom? The US or UK? Or maybe for the so-called liberated countries? Who is now better off?

Originally posted by monument
A good thing for whom? The US or UK? Or maybe for the so-called liberated countries? Who is now better off?

I think he is referring to maybe thousands of political opponents of Sadam who perhaps wouldn't have had the luxury of protesting against him prior to the war in the same way as the London protesters did today.

And probably also to those that Sadam and his two awfull sons and their squads of followers brutalised and killed for decades.

mm

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
But now the polls are going against the view - hence the protestors are the anti-democratic forces by that reasoning, whereas Blair has been shown to correct in hindsight - a statesman leading his people rather than simply following them. Will you just as happily embrace that view and promote it? I doubt it.

I wonder if you've ever paid the slightest bit of attention to what the anti-war side have said. The weight of public oppposition was just a part of the case against Blair's decision to go to war - it was also wrong in principle. Public opinion was not the determinant but an important factor. Please go on and search through my old posts if you feel this is in any way inconsistent, otherwise stop making these spurious claims I can only think you know to be wrong.

How people feel after the event can logically have no bearing on the arguments surrounding the lead-up to the event, since nobody knew how people would feel after the event - and nobody knows how they will feel in six months time. Bush could guess that if he nuked Iran tomorrow people would feel quite sanguine about it in ten years, but that wouldn't make it right, and it wouldn't lessen the force of public opinion against the policy now if word got out.

During the run-up to March, the majority of the public opposed the prospective war. Yet I didn't see anti-war campaigners saying that pro-war people should be somehow prevented from expressing their view, or denouncing them as 'anti-democratic'. Anti-war people did not assume that being in the majority somehow gave them the right to silence opponents. Again, that would be not majority rule, but majority tyranny, no matter how small and tenuous the majority.

Not even one....Okay heres one that makes it sound like everyone in Britain bar blair and his closest friends spit when they hear Bushes name.....

No it doesn't. I notice you couldn't actually produce a quote from that story to support your view that the media are saying that the majority support the war. Why? Because it doesn't, not even close. If you think that's an example of your beloved media conspiracy you're a fantasist. So plese, go on, have another go.

Why does Blair have to defend the visit when the majority have no ill feelings towards the visitor?

Firstly, you have no basis for saying that the majority have no ill-feelings towards the visitor. The results of this one poll said that 43% - last time I checked, that wasn't a majority - 'welcome the visit', which is itself not the same thing as 'have no problems with George Bush'.

So let's brush that statement aside.

Still, why should Blair have to defend the visit? Because there are obviously legitimate questions to be asked about it. Why is he helping to celebrate the Presidency of someone who has helped derail the Kyoto treaty, has done his best to undermine multilateralism in every arena from the UN to the WTO, who continues to illegally detain hundreds of people in Guantanamo Bay, and who has pushed through illegal economic reforms as the occupying power in Iraq?

These are proper questions which anybody with a care for freedom and liberality (such as yourself, apparently) should want to see answered. That's why Blair has to defend it.

By your logic, if the majority (in a newspaper poll) approved of the state visit of Ceausescu in 1978 (and maybe they did) there was no question to answer. I'm sure Nicolai would have loved that attitude. The majority probably don't care about the political prisoners and victims of human rights violations that Amnesty International campaigns for - should they lose their right to ask questions? Should the government not have to answer? Accountability is a fundamental principle of democracy, though of course I'm forgetting that for you governments should just be allowed lie their way out of trouble.

LOL - No its delightful that you imply that because I agree with Bushes policy of intervening against the likes of Saddam that I agree with all his policies, that I am in fact in favour of Bush rather than the particular policy, and when I show you how silly that is by using you and one particular view you share with the protest organisers as an example, you act all offended. Thats just priceless:)

I think I know who you'd vote for in a Bush vs Any Democrat contest. In a two-horse race, as the US presidential contest always is, the choice unfortunately is 'with us or against us'. Still, consider the heinous slur cheerfully withdrawn.

hence I agree with everything Bush says and does

Never said that, as you know. Jeez Sand, for someone with such a keen sense of fairness, you do a lot of misquoting.

monument

Originally posted by Man
I think he is referring to maybe thousands of political opponents of Sadam who perhaps wouldn't have had the luxury of protesting against him prior to the war in the same way as the London protesters did today.

And probably also to those that Sadam and his two awfull sons and their squads of followers brutalised and killed for decades.

mm

Then how many are being killed now?

Originally posted by monument
Then how many are being killed now?

A lot of Iraqi's by Iraqi's aswell as Iraqi's by non Iraqi's not necessarilly by the coalition.

Your dislike of Coalition activities is somewhat justified in some circumstances, but having a defacto preference for the return of Sadam's brutal regime is not good in my honest opinion given their history and they were doing it to their own people and still are guerilla style.

mm

gurramok

I think he is referring to maybe thousands of political opponents of Sadam who perhaps wouldn't have had the luxury of protesting against him prior to the war in the same way as the London protesters did today.

Problem is that there are many countries where this is happening and not a whim of complaint is made. Many countries are ruled by brutal dictators and no intervention occurs. (Plus they do not have oil)

Lets pick one:
Burma is a country where freedom of expression is brutally surpressed, the exact same circumstances as had being under Saddam is occuring. The country is ruled by a military junta for many years where a pro-democracy activist beat the junta in an election many years ago and is still under house arrest ever since. Many thousands of her supporters have been murdered over the years.

Why hasnt Bush who proclaims he a is a 'freedom lover' invaded this country and 'liberalise' the population??

Isn't that the excuse now that the pro-war side are peddling for the Iraq war since the WMD argument was flawed.

Hypocrisy in action on the Bush-blair side.

Originally posted by gurramok
Problem is that there are many countries where this is happening and not a whim of complaint is made. Many countries are ruled by brutal dictators and no intervention occurs. (Plus they do not have oil)

Agreed.

The problem also is for example that Putin went down the mall freely in a chariot with Queen Elizabeth with hardly a protester in sight despite all that has been going on in chechnya.

The mind boggles, when one considers one persons human rights should be as important as the next and protested about as equally regardless of what country is involved.

mm

bonkey

I find it interesting that when people opposed the war, those who supported it talked about it being an expression of anti-Americanism. Now that people are saying that they are generally not anti-American (which is what the first poll Sand referred to was asking), it is being construed as being in facour of these same (and consequent) set of actions.

Strangely enough, many of those who were opposed to the war said that they were not anti-American.....which point of view is entirely supported by the polls as well.

jc

mr_angry

It seems to me that public opinion varies widely depending on where you live. For example, public opinion in France, Germany, Australia and the vast majority of the Middle East were against war. Does British and American public opinion matter more simply because they have the guns?

I think this whole thing reeks of hypocrasy and self-interest. It would be somewhat easier to swallow if it wasn't for the "one rule for us and our mates, and another for the people we don't like" mentality of the American government. I just hope the American people have enough sense to liberate themselves!

shotamoose

Originally posted by mr_angry
It seems to me that public opinion varies widely depending on where you live. For example, public opinion in France, Germany, Australia and the vast majority of the Middle East were against war.

Public opinion in Britain was against the war too.

sovtek

Originally posted by mr_angry
. I just hope the American people have enough sense to liberate themselves!

Doing the best I can with what I have to work with.

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
Strangely enough, many of those who were opposed to the war said that they were not anti-American.....which point of view is entirely supported by the polls as well.

jc

I find it funny when people call me anti-American.
I actually thought Bush should come to Britian so he would be faced with a vigilant press and huge expression of dissent. The only problem I had with his visit was the altering of tradition so as to somewhat insulate the child president.

Sand

Sand, Blair did not get elected at the last election on the basis of waging war against another country, it was not in Labours manifesto, not even mentioned in pre-election promises.

Of course, but dont we elect our leaders with the knowledge that they will have to react to situations which are not known at the present time?

I wonder if you've ever paid the slightest bit of attention to what the anti-war side have said. The weight of public oppposition was just a part of the case against Blair's decision to go to war - it was also wrong in principle. Public opinion was not the determinant but an important factor. Please go on and search through my old posts if you feel this is in any way inconsistent, otherwise stop making these spurious claims I can only think you know to be wrong.

Oh Ive got better things to do with my time than search through hundreds of threads dating back up to 8 months I think. After all your happy to admit that the way Blair and Bush went against the polls was an important part of the anti-war argument, so what would be the point? The attempt to discredit Bush and Blair as dictators for not going with the polls is also summed up beautifully in the way the anti-war crowd tore down a fake statue of Bush, in a parody of the Iraqis tearing down Saddams - And the anti-war movement confirm how deeply meaningful and impressive that tearing down of the statue was by attempting to copy and hijack it. Highest form of praise is copying.

So now weve decided that the polls played an important role in the movements philosophy then what else played a role - principle? Yes, well be hearing more of this side of the argument and less and less about the polls as we go on as the anti-war movement looks a bit hypocritical, criticising actions in the face of polled opinion whilst taking action in the face of polled opinion. Would you agree that it is a bit hypocritical?

So principle - whats the anti-war movements principle? Well lets be generous and say there against war, for political leaders finding just and peaceful solutions to problems and wholly against the human rights abuses and opression that often accompanies conflicts.

So thats why they were out against George Bush, Satans chief representitive on Earth. I was reading up on Bushes visit and especially caught a reference to anti-war movement claiming victory because they had ensured that Bush would not receive the VIP treatment due to security concerns ( this was http://www.mabonline.net/media/news/articles/uk2003/bushukvisitwrecked21.10.03.htm , a british muslim organisation which plays a prominent role in the anti-war movement, at least their name is on the big banner behind Bushes statue getting pulled down along with the CND and the stop the war coalition ), and the point was made that Putin had received the VIP treatment.

So I started thinking - Putin, Russia, Chechnya, Massive human rights abuses and oppression......and yet Putin is able to receive the VIP treatment, and I start thinking where was the hundreds of thousands of marchers out to show their utter disdain for such policies as witnessed in Chechnya? I dont doubt that there was probably a few principled types out there, but obviously not enough to stop Putin getting the full British welcome. And this didnt even register apparently with the MAB despite the atrocities against their spiritual brethern.

Yeah....somehow I dont see principles rallying those mass protests so inconsistently.

Anti-war people did not assume that being in the majority somehow gave them the right to silence opponents. Again, that would be not majority rule, but majority tyranny, no matter how small and tenuous the majority.

Oh Im not interested in silencing the anti war movement - If I did how would I enjoy their attempts to explain why an important factor in their argument is now not an important factor.

How people feel after the event can logically have no bearing on the arguments surrounding the lead-up to the event, since nobody knew how people would feel after the event - and nobody knows how they will feel in six months time.

A strong argument for not making polled opinion part of the case the anti war movment put forward - if only we could go back in time to warn them.

No it doesn't. I notice you couldn't actually produce a quote from that story to support your view that the media are saying that the majority support the war. Why? Because it doesn't, not even close. If you think that's an example of your beloved media conspiracy you're a fantasist. So plese, go on, have another go.

Fine your right - they rob the piece of any context and concentrate 75% of the article on what a minority group is doing and thinking and never mentions what the majority think. I guess thats pretty balanced for Indymedia....That statue being torn down by the protestors in london I mentioned? Its on page 13 of Fridays Irish times, just below it is an article with the introduction "London yesterday united in noisy but peaceful opposition to the bush visit, writes Lynne O'Donnell".

Now I looked though it but didnt find any evidence of London uniting behind the protestors policies....But youre right, of course. That was fair and balanced too wasnt it?

Firstly, you have no basis for saying that the majority have no ill-feelings towards the visitor. The results of this one poll said that 43% - last time I checked, that wasn't a majority - 'welcome the visit', which is itself not the same thing as 'have no problems with George Bush'.

Only 36% wish bush wouldnt come - which indicates 64% either welcome him or dont care whether he comes or not - i.e. no problems.

So let's brush that statement aside.

Yes, for the sake of your argument lets.

These are proper questions which anybody with a care for freedom and liberality (such as yourself, apparently) should want to see answered. That's why Blair has to defend it.

Putin. Full VIP treatment. Hundreds of thousands of protestors at home in their beds.

By your logic, if the majority (in a newspaper poll) approved of the state visit of Ceausescu in 1978 (and maybe they did) there was no question to answer.

No as I said before I dont base my opinions on opinion polls, If I felt that Ceausescu wasnt a good person to invite over and 99% of others believed he was Id still feel Ceausescu wasnt welcome as far as I was concerned. The anti-war movement happily painted Blair and Bush as anti-democratic dictators and now theyve got to deal with their own logic coming back against them - theyre going against the polls, theyre the anti-democrats now by their own logic.

That was an important part of their case. Reap it.

I think I know who you'd vote for in a Bush vs Any Democrat contest. In a two-horse race, as the US presidential contest always is, the choice unfortunately is 'with us or against us'. Still, consider the heinous slur cheerfully withdrawn.

Well Ive got to put in an important disclaimer before Corinthian arrives on the scene. Im Irish and hence the issue of which way Id vote in a US presidential election is moot. And while I agree you *think* you know what way Id vote, hypothetically, youre giving me an awful lot of scope to prove you wrong with "any democrat". US presidents tend to act fairly similar in foreign policy which is the main way they impact our lives after all.

Never said that, as you know. Jeez Sand, for someone with such a keen sense of fairness, you do a lot of misquoting.

Oh so you never said:

"But I suppose you are a George Bush fan, after all." In your first post on the thread

or:

"but you're in such constant agreement with just about everything George says and does that I just assumed " in your second post on the thread?

Assumed what exactly btw Shot? That I agreed with just about everything George says and does? Was that what you assumed?

The mind boggles, when one considers one persons human rights should be as important as the next and protested about as equally regardless of what country is involved.

ooops - I kinda hijacked your argument re: Putin and his visit. Apologies:(

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
So I started thinking - Putin, Russia, Chechnya, Massive human rights abuses and oppression......and yet Putin is able to receive the VIP treatment, and I start thinking where was the hundreds of thousands of marchers out to show their utter disdain for such policies as witnessed in Chechnya?

If Putin's own 'war on terror' bothers you so much, where were you when hundreds of thousands of people were protesting at G8 summits against amongst other things, atrocities in Chechnya, environmental destruction, GM foods, debts, AIDS, sweatshops, child labour and human rights abuses and oppression in general?

Sand makes a valid point.
Putin got all the posh treatment with none of the huge protests, despite what terror he lorded over.

Why weren't people out protesting then?

mm

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Man
Sand makes a valid point.
Putin got all the posh treatment with none of the huge protests, despite what terror he lorded over.

Why weren't people out protesting then?

I think most of the protesters would know that what Russia did to Grozny makes Baghdad look like Paris. Grozny is basically a bombed out shell of a city and there is no talk about reconstruction let alone actual reconstruction occurring.

The principles in operation, as far as I can see, is that of national self-determination and anti-expansionism. Chechnya was conquored in Czarist times and is fully part of the Russian state and recognised by the UN. Therefore the reasoning would be that whatever Russians do against the Chechans is their own business.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Man
Sand makes a valid point.
Putin got all the posh treatment with none of the huge protests, despite what terror he lorded over.

Why weren't people out protesting then?

mm

It's a point worth making, but it's not a good criticism. In much the same way, it was worth asking why America chose to topple Saddam but couldnt' care less about other dictators around the world - but that in itself was not a good argument for saying 'toppling Saddam is wrong'.

So, just because protests against Putin - and I seem to recall there were protests - were not of the same scale as those against Bush, it does not mean that protesting against Bush is somehow wrong. Why did Bush attract more protestors, though? Maybe because America is the pre-eminent world superpower, and because sizable foreign protests could - I'm not saying will - actually harm his chances of being re-elected.

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Therefore the reasoning would be that whatever Russians do against the Chechans is their own business.

My central point was that, people being hurt in their tens of thousands means the same no matter who those people are.
Those out marching against Bush didn't go out marching against Putin when he was in London - Why??
It weakens the case they have somewhat in my honest opinion.

mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
It weakens the case they have somewhat in my honest opinion.

Yes it does indeed. No question about it.

In the same sense, the US quite happily supports or ignores brutal dictatorships where convenient. This similarly weakens the case that Saddam had to go because he was an oppressor of people, assuming you are to apply the same standards to world leaders and their stances as to the average protestor.

Furthermore, in your example you are asking about protests at a specific event rather than protests in general (i.e. people did protest about Putin, even if it wasn't evident at the event(s) you felt it should be).The US support or ignoring of oppressive regimes, on the other hand, is pretty-much consistent until other influences serve to change that stance.

So, if we were to conclude that on this basis alone, the anti-war protestors were clearly showing an anti-American bias, we would also have to conclude that - at the very least - the US actions were clearly not carried out for humanitarian reasons. Now, I know you didn't conclude that, Man - I'm just taking the aspersion-casting to its logical conclusions on both sides.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
My central point was that, people being hurt in their tens of thousands means the same no matter who those people are.

Interestingly, taking that logic a few steps further, you should be able to rapidly conclude that the money spent on easing these people's suffering could have been more effectively used to ease the suffering of a far greater number of people in any number of ways (e.g. fighting massive levels of poverty, starvation, etc. around the world, fighting various diseases, etc.).

Does this not therefore further undermine the humanitarian argument? Or is hoping to alleviate the suffering of tens of thousands worth more than doing the same (or better) for hundreds of thousands to millions? By your logic, it would seem not.

Similarly, one could ask why the US is having less and less to do with Afghanistan when the vast majority of the nation is still in control of oppressive warlords, and is arguably in a worse state than it was under the Taliban. Why is so little money being put into the rebuilding of Afghanistan compared to Iraq? The Afghanis are begging for the additional $4 billion it would take to bring them up to "poor" status, while the US is spending over $20 billion to rebuild Iraq. Lets not forget either that the vast majority of the $60 billion plus which was allocated to continue the military actions was not to use to free the millions of suffering people in Afghanistan - a nation that the US already "liberated". Why is these peoples' suffering not worth bothering about, but the Iraqi peoples' is?

Seriously...you can point fingers all you like at the anti-war demonstrators and how they are inconsistent in their actions, and you'll be mostly right. On the other hand, such a stance is all to easily reversed with an even greater degree of criticism at the US.

jc

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Man
My central point was that, people being hurt in their tens of thousands means the same no matter who those people are.

But has this ever been the central issue for the protesters? Sure, the loss of life in Iraq is one of the things they use in their argument, but I always assumed that the main object of the protests was US imperialism and the idea that oil was the main motive behind the invasion.

Originally posted by bonkey

Seriously...you can point fingers all you like at the anti-war demonstrators and how they are inconsistent in their actions, and you'll be mostly right. On the other hand, such a stance is all to easily reversed with an even greater degree of criticism at the US.

Oh yes indeed that is very fair comment and I would not diss the reasons why the protesters were specifically out against Bush.

{ with a touch of sarcasm } After all he has been responsible in less than four years for a remarkable about turn in the type of welcome the U.S president would receive here in Ireland. I seem to recall tens of thousands out on the streets cheering and waving the stars and stripes when Clinton Visited here. The international policies of the U.S in the 50 years prior to that visit had very little negative impact on that welcome.
It brings us back to the ever changing public opinion that has been mentioned in this thread.{/ touch of Sarcasm ends... }

And yes of course if you applied all the money wasted on the arms race during the cold war together with what all governments spend on arms now ( and obviously more especially the U.S and Nato countries ) into a great plan for the betterment of the world then we mighn't have any starvation and maybe we could buy off some of the worlds more crazy dictators or semi-dictators allowing their people to have a better life also.

But as long as I've been alive I've seen no signs of western governments on a vast enough scale giving up their own interests for the good of the world as a whole.
Whatever Party wields power in the U.S have a greater obligation than most, given the size of their nation and consequent of that and their following their own agenda , yes they provide the world with more experience of what they can do.

I personally think though Putin deserved at least a similar reception to Bush rather than get off virtually Scott free.

A thread by the way comparing, contrasting and discusing Bush's record in office vis a vis that of Putin would be interesting.

mm

sovtek

Originally posted by Man
I personally think though Putin deserved at least a similar reception to Bush rather than get off virtually Scott free.

He hasn't gotten away scott free. I remember people being highly critical of the handling of the Moscow theatre.
People have been complaining about Russias handling of Chechnya since the onset of the war.
One criticism of the "war on terror" has been Washingtons silence on many other critical human rights issues with several different countries...Chechnya being one of the many.
If Putin had been involved in starting two wars in the past 3 years, then he very well may have hundreds of thousands dogging him at every chance.

Originally posted by sovtek

If Putin had been involved in starting two wars in the past 3 years, then he very well may have hundreds of thousands dogging him at every chance.

He has got away virtually scott free.
Considering what he is sponsoring in chechnya.

It bears striking similarities with the Iraq conflict according to Al jazeera unfortunately.
Human rights watch also makes for depressing reading.

Not wanting to take from the critisism of Bush at all by the way , but if you put his nearly four year record up along side that of Putin and his predecessor, the latters would be more muddy in my honest opinion.
Yet Putin gets to ride down the mall in the queens carriage almost unhindered.

mm

Sand

It's a point worth making, but it's not a good criticism. In much the same way, it was worth asking why America chose to topple Saddam but couldnt' care less about other dictators around the world - but that in itself was not a good argument for saying 'toppling Saddam is wrong'.

In the same sense, the US quite happily supports or ignores brutal dictatorships where convenient. This similarly weakens the case that Saddam had to go because he was an oppressor of people, assuming you are to apply the same standards to world leaders and their stances as to the average protestor.

I think its a good criticism - its obvious now that public opinion doesnt guide the protests, they happily march against it. Its also clear that principle doesnt guide the protests, unless of course the "anti-war, not in my name , what about the children, what about the children" lads approve of the Chechyen conflict - feel that its all above board , that whilst Russian and Cheychen forces engage in an orgy of violence against civillians thats not worth getting the hundreds of thousands out to protest to Putin about - and seeing as Putins country likes its foreign aid such protests might actually make a bloody difference there.

No instead we get to listen about the rather less shocking activities of the coalition in Iraq, what monsters they are. Of course Russian forces are way up there on the moral ladder - apparently Putin is not worth a protest, the suffering of the Cheychens is not worth rallying a mass protest for.

Stick an american flag on it though and youll get your mass protests. Or maybe the organisers of the stop-the-war protests still have a soft spot for their former idealogical utopia, cant bring themselves to go against Russia. Its hard not to be cynical about the self-righteous.

And these are the morally superiour, holier than thou crowd. I mean everyone knows the US and UK governments are full of rotten, evil imperialist bastards - sadly enough we expect that, its a given. But I had expected some principles to be guiding the anti-war movement - I had hoped they were the "good guys" out there fighting for the little man.

Why wasnt there protests out against Putin that even *approached* the scale of Bush? Surely the principle was the same - a terrible war with immense human suffering, and its orchestrator being feted as a guest of the Queen? Why didnt that get the crowds out?

Not representitive of public opinion. Not principled. Just a bunch of sheep. Oh look, theres a Michael Moore book sale - run quick and learn the real truth!

Seriously...you can point fingers all you like at the anti-war demonstrators and how they are inconsistent in their actions, and you'll be mostly right. On the other hand, such a stance is all to easily reversed with an even greater degree of criticism at the US.

Is it? People ask why the coalition doesnt go after say North Korea the same way it went after Saddam. Its been asked dozens of times, held up as an example of how corrupt the coalitions position is. I ask why the principled anti-war movement doesnt get out a protest when a non-american war crinimal arrives on the scene? Is it the same thing?

Not really - The invasion of Iraq has a real cost in terms of human lives, and human suffering. So would the invasion of North Korea. In Iraq, the cost is relatively low, the war was won qucikly and easily - the benefit of the new Iraq will outweigh the costs. The cost of attacking North korea would be immense - nuclear war is nearly certain, the invasion of South Korea and levelling of Seoul is even more certain. The benefit of a freer North Korea would be great but great enough to outweigh the costs of milatary action? I dont think so.

But whats the cost of getting a protest out there - nothing. No one dies, there is no serious increase in human suffering. There is absolutely no reason why people who can organise a mass protest against Bush can organise a similar protest against a man who is responsible for Cheychnya. None. Except of course, principles are not guiding their philosophy. Why arent they equally applying their philosphy and principles to all cases when there is no cost to them, from case to case?

Whose the greater hypocrit? The group that has to face differing costs to its actions in each case and takes differing actions, or the group which faces the same insignificant cost in each case and apparently exists only to undertake principled action and takes differing actions?