Last year's peace march

magpie

As a matter of interest, who here went on last year's anti-war march?

Do you feel like you achieved anything?

Was it important to march anyway?

I for one am extremely glad to have registered my protest at the war, even though our government chose to ignore us.

Hairy Homer

I was there too. And I'm sure of the 99,998 others there were some who post here occasionally.

It was important to register a protest. As many Americans did too. At least the government can't claim that it ever got a ringing endorsement for its actions. If such they can be called.

Kali

As a matter of interest, who here went on last year's anti-war march?

yep.. pics: http://unknownprocedure.com/gallery/feb15th/

Do you feel like you achieved anything?
Was it important to march anyway?

I never felt like anything would be achieved in the grander scale of things (i.e. halting the war), but yes it was important to march and make the general populations views on the war heard, and seen... and I do believe it had the government running scared for a bit, of course this being Ireland people will still go out and vote for the same government come the next elections.

rde

I was there, and knew at the time that it wouldn't accomplish anything. However, I went anyway, as it was a global day of protest, and that that Ireland should take its part. To my mind, the aim wasn't to convince the American government (or the Irish government specifically), but to let European governments in general know that most people were against the war.

Redleslie

Yeah I was there. I hadn't wanted to go, since it wasn't going to stop the war, but friends made me and I was glad I went in the end. I got the feeling I was helping create an image and event that will be remembered through history or something. One of the things I remember most about it was seeing some English bloke standing outside O'Donoghues (I think) on baggot street yelling abuse at the passing marchers and telling everyone to "go home". It was one of the most articulate arguments in favour of the invasion I'd heard from any of the pro-war barbarians, liars and blowhards.

Morpheus

How can you generalise like that??

How does 100,000 (if indeed even that paltry sum turned up) out of almost 4,000,000 ammount to the "general population" or "most of the populations"
opinions?

last time i checked, 4,000,000 divided by 100,000 does not = greater than 50%

four million divided by one hundred thousand equates to 2.5%

While I wish the anti-war community all the best in their protests, i wish they would cease with the propeganda like thoughts that what turned out on the streets of dublin represent the thoughts and opinions of the majority of people here in ireland.

It simply isnt true,because if even half the population were in support of the cause, you would have seen far more people on the streets campaigning.

Nuttzz

100,000 march for peace, 900,000 stay at home for war!!!!

This years turn out was a lot poorer, I had to laugh when Sinn Fein took the platform, they have never been involved in war.......

Johnmb

Originally posted by Morphéus
How can you generalise like that??

How does 100,000 (if indeed even that paltry sum turned up) out of almost 4,000,000 ammount to the "general population" or "most of the populations"
opinions?

last time i checked, 4,000,000 divided by 100,000 does not = greater than 50%

four million divided by one hundred thousand equates to 2.5%

While I wish the anti-war community all the best in their protests, i wish they would cease with the propeganda like thoughts that what turned out on the streets of dublin represent the thoughts and opinions of the majority of people here in ireland.

It simply isnt true,because if even half the population were in support of the cause, you would have seen far more people on the streets campaigning.

I think the many, many polls that took place at the time proved that the vast majority of Irish people were against the war. That 100,000 that showed up were not the only people against it.

Sparks

Originally posted by Morphéus
It simply isnt true,because if even half the population were in support of the cause, you would have seen far more people on the streets campaigning.

So the largest civil protest in the history of the state is meaningless, eh?
Well done that Bertie.... :rolleyes:

And your numbers are wrong. There were 120,000 people at the march, according to the counts done on the day. At the last election, there were 1,858,113 valid votes cast. Assuming that anyone that came out in cold weather to march would also vote against supporting the war, that's 6.5% of the active electorate, not 2.5%. And given that these people were willing to come out on a cold day and publicly protest despite media attention and the memory of the Dame Street riots fresh in everyone's mind, I think that it's quite reasonable to say that many more people would have voted against supporting the war had there been a referendum where it's more convienent, your vote is secret, there's no chance of riot police laying into you and you know your vote determines policy. Remember, activism is very rare in this country. Few people bother. That so many people were out that day is far more significant than you are making out.

Sand

So the largest civil protest in the history of the state is meaningless, eh

Yes it is, because.....

of course this being Ireland people will still go out and vote for the same government come the next elections.

which sort of invalidates....

to let European governments in general know that most people were against the war.

There were 120,000 people at the march, according to the counts done on the day. At the last election, there were 1,858,113 valid votes cast. Assuming that anyone that came out in cold weather to march would also vote against supporting the war, that's 6.5% of the active electorate, not 2.5%.

Which is still less than most - even if you assume that it was 120000 people and even if you assume that those 120000 were all of voting age or regular voters. Happily the activist/rent a mob crowd are disdainful of voting so we dont have to worry about them actually effecting policy in any shape or form.

Kali

Originally posted by Morphéus
How can you generalise like that??

How does 100,000 (if indeed even that paltry sum turned up) out of almost 4,000,000 ammount to the "general population" or "most of the populations"
opinions?

last time i checked, 4,000,000 divided by 100,000 does not = greater than 50%

four million divided by one hundred thousand equates to 2.5%

Hardly propoganda.. besides which there were similar marchs around the country in various towns.. not just Dublin... logistics and general apathy aside it was a huge turnout... and a wide range of people who normally wouldn't go within two miles of such a hippyfest put aside their preconceptions and gladly attended, that simple fact alone, that normal everyday people of the country (not the crusties or the far-left/right wings) turned up to voice their concerns made it all the more poignant.

Victor

Originally posted by Morphéus
last time i checked, 4,000,000 divided by 100,000 does not = greater than 50%

No one said it was greater that 50%. However, how often do crowds like that take to the street?

Morphéus, how many of "your crowd" are effective and non-effective? How many show up every week?

Morpheus

(Please read the other posts before mine and then you can tell me whats what!!!)

I never suggested it was only 100,000, i was going on what the first 2 posts said.

We were referring to the general population, not the voting population, thats what one of the preceeding posts said.

Victor, to what group do you refer by saying "your crowd" ?

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Morphéus
How can you generalise like that??

How does 100,000 (if indeed even that paltry sum turned up) out of almost 4,000,000 ammount to the "general population" or "most of the populations"
opinions?

last time i checked, 4,000,000 divided by 100,000 does not = greater than 50%

four million divided by one hundred thousand equates to 2.5%

While I wish the anti-war community all the best in their protests, i wish they would cease with the propeganda like thoughts that what turned out on the streets of dublin represent the thoughts and opinions of the majority of people here in ireland.

It simply isnt true,because if even half the population were in support of the cause, you would have seen far more people on the streets campaigning.

Must buy: Statistics for Dummies.

There were many more people in general sympathy with the march who didn't/couldn't make it on the day. Not everyone has the time to get up from Ballygobackwards to Dublin for a protest march.

magpie

Not everyone has the time to get up from Ballygobackwards to Dublin for a protest march.

Besides, culchies only care about themselves.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
Must buy: Statistics for Dummies.

There were many more people in general sympathy with the march who didn't/couldn't make it on the day. Not everyone has the time to get up from Ballygobackwards to Dublin for a protest march.

Yeah that should be obvious. Everybody in my family of 6 opposed the war but I was the only one that went on the march. Still, 100,000+ people in a city of 1 million and out of a total population of 4 million ought to be impressive enough. How many pro-war marches were there? How many people turned up? Where were all the blowhards and gullible eejits who supported the war because they believed Saddam was the new Hitler? I thought that they would've been campaigning like crazy to get our neutral stance abolished so we could get stuck in with the "coalition", give evil a jolly good thump in the face and save civilisation from tyranny. But no, they must have had other priorities.

Morpheus

"We" are not and never have been, "constitutionally" neutral like our neutral european states...

My statistics may not be impressive, but at least get your politics right.

Also, why " publicly protest" FOR the war, if the govt isn't publicly against it!??

kinda silly suggestion.

bonkey

Originally posted by Morphéus
"We" are not and never have been, "constitutionally" neutral like our neutral european states...

My statistics may not be impressive, but at least get your politics right.

Why? Where did he say that we are constitutionally neutral?

If you're going to be condescending to the guy, you could at least either supply a quote, or stop putting words in his mouth.

jc

shotamoose

Well I went on the march in London, and I'm glad of it. Did it stop the war? No. But the war and the dissent it provoked have seriously damaged Tony Blair, and now nobody believes a word he says.

Besides, the idea that you should only protest about something when you're certain that protest will change the outcome is absurd in the extreme. Politics is unpredictable, and protest adds an ingredient of your own choosing to the mix.

Morpheus

What I meant was... if were not constitutionally neutral, then you cant say ireland is neutral!!!

You CAN say Ireland has a largely neutral stance in its defence policy regarding foreign affairs.

If I came across as condascending, my apologies, debate is proactive, I didnt intend to cause offence, its good to talk, it just gets me that so many irish people blindly assume that we are constitutionally neutral, you wouldnt believe how many time s ive said this and smiled at the disbelief on others faces!!

Johnmb

Originally posted by Morphéus
What I meant was... if were not constitutionally neutral, then you cant say ireland is neutral!!!

You CAN say Ireland has a largely neutral stance in its defence policy regarding foreign affairs.

If I came across as condascending, my apologies, debate is proactive, I didnt intend to cause offence, its good to talk, it just gets me that so many irish people blindly assume that we are constitutionally neutral, you wouldnt believe how many time s ive said this and smiled at the disbelief on others faces!!

I think most people know and accept that. Most people also realise that we are not politically neutral (which is even more obvious than the constitutional thing), but up until fairly recently, most Irish people thought that we were militarily neutral (peace keeping under the auspices of the UN doesn't generally get considered as effecting neutrality). We now know otherwise.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Morphéus
"We" are not and never have been, "constitutionally" neutral like our neutral european states...

My statistics may not be impressive, but at least get your politics right.

Also, why " publicly protest" FOR the war, if the govt isn't publicly against it!??

kinda silly suggestion.

Ireland is not in NATO and is the only country in the EU to refuse to publicly support or oppose the war, so I'd call that neutral. If the pro-war mob really supported the war and really believed the nonsense that Saddam was the new Hitler then they should've been out in the streets and in the courts trying to get parts of Article 29 amended to take out any mention of "international law" and demanding to join the war. Didn't happen though did it? Too much effort to get off the barstool obviously.

Victor

Originally posted by Morphéus
Also, why " publicly protest" FOR the war, if the govt isn't publicly against it!??

But Bertie says the 100,000 were supporting him ....

Johnmb

Originally posted by Victor
But Bertie says the 100,000 were supporting him ....

LOL!!!
And the sad thing is, I'm not surprised. Can you remember where you seen this? If it's still there, I could do with a laugh.

Victor

Originally posted by Johnmb
And the sad thing is, I'm not surprised. Can you remember where you seen this? If it's still there, I could do with a laugh.

Not sure, it might have been quoted here. It was picked up a few months ago that Bertie had (a) claimed the crowd were on his side (b) felt his stance was vindicated when Bush declared the end to major combat operations.

Nuttzz

Ireland is not in NATO

no but we are part of NATO's PfP, so its a little from column A and a little from Column B

pork99

I felt uneasy about the start of the war last year because it was not a war that absolutely had to be fought. (Though I also suspect it could only have been postponed for a few years)

However I would never have gone out to protest as the "anti-war" - in reality "anti-American" marches - were run by a ragbag of unrepresentative left-wing groups, SWP/SF/Green Party rent-a-mob.

I mean war is a hard thing not to be against but I felt that being anti-war in this case was also to be unwittingly pro-Saddam.

Gyck

As a matter of interest, who here went on last year's anti-war march?

Yes, I was there. Did I feel like I achieved anything?

For the first time in my life I registered my frustration at an event that was global.

I knew that at the time it would mean next to nothing. Bush is still in power. The world is still fekked up. But for the first time in my life I wanted others to know how I felt. Frustrated. Annoyed. Sad.

And it felt good: in a sad, perverse way.

Agent Smith

i was there, and even tho wour voice was egnored, it was worth the effort.

Morpheus

Originally posted by Redleslie
Ireland is not in NATO and is the only country in the EU to refuse to publicly support or oppose the war, so I'd call that neutral.

:rolleyes: id call THAT sitting on the fence, something this spineless, useless overpaid govt is good at. And PfP = Almost member of NATO.

chewy

One of the main points put to those argueing for peace recently was that we couldn't just sit on the sidelines of interenational situations and be pacifist, but we need to active in struggling for peace rather then giving our resources to others to fight wars.

Alot of people have concerns about our defence being left to and paid for by other countries which is reasonable concern but not a reason to relinquish our peaceful reputation. After all the dicussion and protests most people realise that Ireland is not neutral. I believe the Irish people want to be peaceful (as seen on Feb 15th) not by our "policies" or "alliances" but by our actions. Active peace means to me to have not allow foreign military in our country, ethical investment, and put ourselves out to promote negotiate peace internationaly.

letter i wrote to newspapers way back when

Morpheus

Originally posted by chewy
and put ourselves out to promote negotiate peace internationaly.

That is what our army does!!! Irelands army is renowned as the worlds leading expert in international peacekeeping and a lot of other military (including Uk and USA) train here for months on end every single year, with our army to learn just how to peace keep properly, in fact were in such demand that current troop levels are too low and we have to turn peacekeeping missions down.

We're one of the only western forces ever respected in any sense of the word, as bringers of peace, by arab nations.

chewy

yeah ill agree with you there re peacekeeping but
the more we association ourselves with the US the more that respect will erode....

and when an arab or africa hears the number of Us troops going through ireland to others parts the world the more will lose that respect .....

the more we program the weapons of all sides the more we'll lose that respect

Morpheus

regarding production of weapons...

The state our economy is in, we cant afford to not get involved in the weapons industry, im sorry, but in a perfect world, some peoples ideals here would work, but in the real world when it comes down to it, in the balancing of figures in a nations budget and lives lost in some god forsaken place the far side of where-ever, the purse is always more important. These are the cold hard facts that we all know and have to live with.

regarding american planes, weve always done it, and not just americans, it happened during the last gulf war and almost all wars previous to that right back to WW2, there are many militarys that land here and refuel, again, it improves our international relations with the western powers that we are part of, it may make us a larger target but u know as well as i do that these extremists see us all in the same light rich western democracies ripe for their extreme purification, regardles whether we are neutral or not, terrorism knows no code of conduct, geneva convention or respect of national or international policies. just look at the hostages taken in Iraq, some are from nations that supported Iraq and are against the use of force and the presence of the allies there.

If this wasnt the case, no irish soldier would ever have died on peacekeeping while in the lebannon, kosavo, east timor, the congo or anywhere else..

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by pork99
I felt uneasy about the start of the war last year because it was not a war that absolutely had to be fought. (Though I also suspect it could only have been postponed for a few years)

However I would never have gone out to protest as the "anti-war" - in reality "anti-American" marches - were run by a ragbag of unrepresentative left-wing groups, SWP/SF/Green Party rent-a-mob.

I mean war is a hard thing not to be against but I felt that being anti-war in this case was also to be unwittingly pro-Saddam.

There were anything from 100,000 to 120,000 people on that march. And yes, some of them indeed might have been rabidly anti American. Or Anarchist. Or Trotskyite. Or even Islamicist. I am not any of these things and neither, I would suggest, were the vast majority of people on that march. I mean, when could the Trots ever get more than a handful of people out for one of their own exclusive marches?

This was a 'coalition of the willing': people from all walks of life, largely from the Irish middle class from my observation, who united for a day on a particular issue. There is no way that I would ever vote for Spin Vain or the Silly **** Party but nor was I going to let their presence on a march dissuade me from registering my own protest just because, for once, I actually agreed with them. (partly)


Don't confuse Anti-Americanism with being opposed to the rantings of the neoconservative MINORITY who have achieved such influence in Washington lately.

These guys (and gals) are old hat. We have seen and heard their ideas before in many different guises. They are simply old school imperialists and colonisers whose delivery has been slightly updated to take account of the new era of global communications, globalised commerce and a culture that is gradually (very gradually) homogenising around the world.

As I've said before the likes of Bush, Perle, Rumsfeld etc etc are traitors to the American ideal. How does a promise to 'capture or kill' a particular individual square with the tenets of the US Constitution's own Bill of Rights that nobody shall be deprived of 'life or liberty' without 'due process of law'?

How does the usurpation of a right to invade, destroy and hunt down anybody who disagrees with them in a foreign country square with the great self-evident belief that 'all men are created equal' and are 'endowed by their creator with certain fundamental rights'?

How does an insistence on the removal from a particular area of all members of a certain non-American TV network (Al-Jazeera) before a ceasefire can be negotiated square with an alleged commitment to 'freedom of the press'?

How can a nation that was built up largely by political refugees fleeing from a Europe dominated by privilege and the oppression of minorities by great powers now demand that its economic and military clout makes it a 'more equal than others' animal in the construction of a new world order?

These moves are anathema to the principles on which the USA claims it was founded. Mouthing fine principles is one thing, putting them into effect takes a courage and determination to stand up for them and to insist that they be upheld. And that does not mean rampaging through Iraq like a bunch of bounty hunters.

The neocons are guilty of treason against their own country's ideals. In Britain they can still hang you for that.

Zaphod B

That was inspiring Homer. I'm off to get the gun :ninja:

Seriously though, you're right about anti-war marchers - in London at least (and in most places where marches took place from what I could see from the coverage) the usual fanatics and rent-a-mob were a minority, the majority were people who were personally deeply opposed to the war, and highly suspicious of the motives behind it and the justifications given for it. Often they were opposed to the current US administration - it doesn't mean they were Anti-American. That suggests they were simply racist. They weren't and aren't.

I like to think I got a pretty good idea of what was going on as I was there as a photographer rather than a marcher, and from what I saw the Blame-Everything-On-The-Jews brigade and other muppets were a minority.

Sparks

Originally posted by Morphéus
regarding american planes, weve always done it, and not just americans,

Sorry, stop there. You're incorrect. This was proven in the High Court in Horgan vs State, where the Government conceded that their allowing the USAF to use Shannon and to overfly us, given what was going on, went directly against the last fifty years of government policy.
So we haven't always done it. In fact, we've never done it, not in the history of the state.

chewy

*Start Excerpt from 'Horgan' case*

JUSTICE KEARNS:
If you take the case issue by issue on the issue of neutrality and international law, was not the plaintiff successful despite the defendant's best efforts in establishing to the court's satisfaction at least that there is a rule of customary international law that a neutral State does not allow its territory to be used for the movement of substantial numbers of troops and munitions?

MR. O'DONNELL: (defence for the State)
Yes, my Lord, I fully accept that, but, firstly, it is not normally the case that if the plaintiff succeeds on only one issue, he will still recover all his costs, because the event follows, and the fact that he ...(INTERJECTION).

JUSTICE KEARNS:
Insofar as the issues were concerned, in one sense they boiled down to simple -- well, I would not call them simple questions, decisions on Articles 28 and 29, but as part of the considerations which had to be canvassed as part of the hearing were issues revolving around the identification of a principle of international law, which Mr. Horgan contended established that a neutral country cannot allow movement of substantial armed troops and munitions through its territory by way of assisting one belligerent State only. He contended, and the court accepted, that in international law there is such a principle. In that respect, he was successful in reaching that point.

*End Excerpt* (Justice Kearns awarded Horgan 50% of his costs in bringing this action against the State)

just cos we always did doens't make it right... it was wrong then and its wrong now


an army, any amry isn't the first people i'd go to looking to for peace, im not saying there shouldn't be armies, haven't figured that one out yet:)

re peacekeepers irish, you can defend their abilities to the cows come home but you can't argue that they arn't serious question re the role of peacekeepers

take liberia for example the guys are there now, undoubtedly the US had a large influence in what went on their and they forced a change of leader to suit them, then they get a third party country like ireland via the un to go in there and yes they protect the civilians they calm the place down to the best of their ability, but they also help the this new regime stay in power.... so it can't change back, there are being used and they know it

[a simple look after agood bit of reading but im sure you could pick whole in the minutae of the situation]

to the guy who said "the purse is always more important"

is that your own guiding pricincipal?

Morpheus

The purse string thing was me.... thats the principal of every government vis a vis nation, on this planet, sorry you dont have to like it but its a fact... our govt will ALWAYS act in the "nations best interest" which boils down to, "what financial gain do we get out of it?", thats EVERY country, so even if the groovy Greens got in, believe me, it wouldnt change that much.

Have you proof to back up your claims that were being pushed around by the US, it seems that every time something happens and Irish troops are asked by the UN to get involved, someone manages to vaguely link it to our neutrality issues and the shannon situation. Did you not think that for the past 20 years the Liberians have had back to back civil wars, and now Taylor is gone, the country is completely collapsing.


Ireland is there in a peace enforcement role, backing up the UN forces who are trying to stabilise the situation there. Liberia has serious issues and these need to be addressed, the US govt does not dictate Irish policy, like it or lump it.

The UN mission is one of a demobilization, disarmament, rehabilitation and reintegration program in the areas under their control.

How is this a bad thing? Why do you suggest that the US has influenced our government to put its troops there?

The US did no such thing, the Irish army is the worlds best peacekeeping force they have more experience dealing with terrorists and peace keeping than any other UN force, the UN sends its other members army staff here to learn how to instruct their own troops in the Irish Way of peace keeping.

Irish people should be damn well proud of what our army has done and the sacrifices individuals have made in the past, not for us, but for other people in other nations. Just look at Lebanon, speak to any lebanese people and they have nothing but praise for us, my friend is half lebanese, half irish, enough said.

Dont dirty the water by stating we are there as part of a covert US mission, the UN asked our govt, our govt conceded and the Irish Army went under orders to back up the UN forces with the consequence that the Army Rangers managed to save 35 people from being massacred in a village, took their captors prisoner and all without a shot being fired... This is under UN mandate, not US.

You sound like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory.

chewy

again i never doubted the irish peacekeepers abilities i doubted the whole notion of "peackeeping" vs peacemaking....

ill have to looks again for multiple varified facts that US has been influencing liberas various regimes for the last numbers years obviusly france before that...

are you telling US doesn't do regime change that they couldn't have possilby have influenced liberias current situation, that i find funny?

the irish peacekeepers act under their own volition but inehitably all there doing is clearing up the mess made by the imperial powers in africa ... whether it be france or the US (now) , your gonna tell me that imperialism doesn't exist next...

again i asked is the purse string always more important... your own motto, what works on a samll scale for you applies to large scale for a country.. of course everyone has to work to put food on their table but you can choose whether to work 70hrs a week for an arms manufacturer and have expensive clothes and nice holidays or you can work for another company for much less hours for less money but more free time and a better quality of life....

as i said what applies on a small scale applies on a big scale

Victor

Originally posted by Morphéus
Ireland is there in a peace enforcement role, backing up the UN forces who are trying to stabilise the situation there. Liberia has serious issues and these need to be addressed, the US govt does not dictate Irish policy, like it or lump it. .... How is this a bad thing? Why do you suggest that the US has influenced our government to put its troops there? The US did no such thing, the Irish army is the worlds best peacekeeping force they have more experience dealing with terrorists and peace keeping than any other UN force, the UN sends its other members army staff here to learn how to instruct their own troops in the Irish Way of peace keeping.

Actually quite a few ciountries jumped at the option of working in Liberia so they could either (a) not back up the Americans in Iraq or (b) free up Americans to go to Iraq (more FY than Liberia though).