Anti-War March - Alienates more people

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Not alone that , but I heard, on the 2fm news this evening that some outside Leinster House were burning images of Bertie Ahern.

The vast majority of the 20,000 or so that were there wouldn't go that far, but I'll bet those are the images that will be reprted tomorow.

And then there was the supreme hypocrisy of a Sinn Féin councillor at their Árd fhéis today complaining about the slaughter of innocent civilians and children in Iraq by the coalition.
But then, the IRA never did anything like that did they??:rolleyes:
mm

mike65

Its events like todays that keeps Saddam chipper though....;)

Mike.

o sleep

other groups that made me feel a little bit weary about marching beside (apart from sinn fein, who were mentioned above) would include, in descending order: any christian groups (and boy were there many), SWSS, labour. also, there was some stupid stupid girl in a hood and baseball cap and sunglasses with a sign that read something like 'the queen is praying for the safe return of british soldiers, the irish are praying for the safe return of british soldiers in BODY BAGS' (her capitals), which is hypocrtical to say the least. as for the iraqi flags that were flown, from what i could see, most were flown by arabs, presumably of iraqi origin, but i can't say for sure. however, it really is irrespective of whether these groups 'alienate' people, as if you're against the war, you should march. it would be like not voting against abortion (say) in the last referendum because those crazy far right groups were also voting against. i dunno, tricky area.

there were a couple of amusing banners, though, one in particular which read: let's bomb finland, cuz they'd never expect it

Cork

Originally posted by Man
Not alone that , but I heard, on the 2fm news this evening that some outside Leinster House were burning images of Bertie Ahern.

And then there was the supreme hypocrisy of a Sinn Féin councillor at their Árd fhéis today complaining about the slaughter of innocent civilians and children in Iraq by the coalition.
But then, the IRA never did anything like that did they??:rolleyes:
mm

According to TV3 at 5.30 - there was only 8000 there. 8% of the number who marched their a number of weeks ago.

I think that the involvment of SF has turned a lot of people off.

Now that would be fair enough if that flag hadn't replaced the original flag of the country. That flag is the flag of the Ba'ath party. So do these muppets actually support Saddam?

There is an honest and genuine case to be put aganist this war. Burning images of Bertie Ahern or waving Ba'ath party flags achieve nothing but to alienate those who genunely believe the war is immoral.

Are these marchs just seen as a convenient bandwagon for certain political groups?

There is a genuine debate happening about the war. I think - marchs like todays are media events and too in your face to cultivate debate.

banjaxed

This is the flag of the Baath Party in Iraq:
http://flagspot.net/flags/iq%7Dbaath.html
I did not see any of these flown today. I saw Palestinian flags and pre-1991 (secular) Iraqi flags. Why shouldn't Iraqis fly their flag? Their country (regardless of the motive of the attackers) is under attack and being invaded.

Why shouldn't Palestinians fly their flag? Their country is under occupation.

Next you'll be telling me that anyone who ever flies a tricolour is supporting the PIRA, and anyone who flies the UnionJack is supporting Combat 18.

Should the citizens of the Falklands started waving Argentinian flags after they were invaded? Argentina said it was "liberating" the Malvinas at the time. The residents didn't quite see it that way.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cork
According to TV3 at 5.30 - there was only 8000 there. 8% of the number who marched their a number of weeks ago.

I think that the involvment of SF has turned a lot of people off.

I was there, and my estimate was somewhere between 12-15,000.

As for the SF thing, they weren't very obvious today, but then they may have been busy at the RDS. Interestingly, the people who criticise the anti-war marches because of the presence of Sinn Fein(with their history in Northern Ireland) rarely seem to have anything to say about the US waging war in Iraq to rid it of (alleged) WMD, when it has the biggest stock of chemical and biological agents in the world, and the most advanced nuclear weapons! What about the UK preaching freedom, when its own history is stained with the blood of "uncivilised tribes" (Winston Churchill's comment about the people of modern-day Iraq in the 1920s, when the UK used poison gas to subdue the uppity locals...)

If you are anti-war, then join the protests. There were many groups involved today who I would not consider kindred spirits, but I believed it more important to march today than stay at home, untainted by those elements. I didn't witness the burning of the US flag, but I'll say now its idiotic. I could hear one of the speakers make a comment about the same person trying to make trouble at all the protests, I presume this was the incident he was referring to. I can also say that the call from all the speakers was for peaceful protest/civil disobediance, rather than acts of violence.

gandalf

I was there also and there were alot more than the 10000 last week. I reckon the 20000 number is close to the mark.

As regards any dodgy doing I saw nothing no flag burning no Bertie burning (unfortunately!). The worst thing I saw was peace symbols spray painted into road signs and the road itself.

It was a very good natured protest and the general public who weren't taking part greeted it in a good humoured manner. My only problem is the Stella that I consumed after it with Beruthiel, Chief and Amy (oh my poor head!).

Gandalf.

Zukustious

Most of the people who go to these anti-war protests are just there because it is fashionable to be there. It's now "cool" to be anti-American. This really sucks because it means that the majority of people at anti-war marches are posers.

gandalf

So Zukustious are you calling me a poser anti-American.

I'd love to see you back this up with proof.

Gandalf.

Meh

Originally posted by gandalf
As regards any dodgy doing I saw nothing no flag burning no Bertie burning (unfortunately!).

On the RTE 9 o'clock news, they showed footage from the demo of protesters burning a US flag while spitting on it, as well as burning a photo of Bertie.

It was a very good natured protest

Setting fire to things and spitting on them isn't exactly what I'd call "good-natured".

RTÉ put the figure at about 20,000.

Originally posted by: therecklessone
As for the SF thing, they weren't very obvious today, but then they may have been busy at the RDS. Interestingly, the people who criticise the anti-war marches because of the presence of Sinn Fein(with their history in Northern Ireland) rarely seem to have anything to say about the US waging war in Iraq to rid it of (alleged) WMD, when it has the biggest stock of chemical and biological agents in the world, and the most advanced nuclear weapons!

Well, if you ask the U.S administration about this, they will most likely tell you, yes they have, these weapons but they aren't going to sell them to terrorists.
They may only now have learned their lesson regarding selling them to countries!
They are even less likely to use them, they are there as an established deterrent to any state that may develope or possess the same weapons.
The more píssed off, Sadam is with , the U.S the more likely, they think he is to help the pro liferation of those nasty substances.
The U.S stockpile of weapons are not a threat to western civilisation, unlike terrorism, if it involves weapons of mass distruction.
mm

therecklessone

Originally posted by Zukustious
Most of the people who go to these anti-war protests are just there because it is fashionable to be there. It's now "cool" to be anti-American. This really sucks because it means that the majority of people at anti-war marches are posers.

And you know this because you've talked to the people who attend protests, and know exactly what they think???

Face it, the protests attract a variety of supporters, some more dedicated than others. The majority of people in this country are reluctant to involve themselves in political causes, I believe because of concerns about the time and effort required, so it takes something serious to actually motivate them and get them out on the street. To simply dismiss them as posers, seeking to portray them as jumping on the anti-American bandwagon is both lazy and dishonest.

Its rare enough that people in this country are motivated to express their feelings on a political (many would say moral) issue, and I certainly wish the general public were more active, but it really annoys me when genuine political protest is dismissed by people, for whatever reasons.

I challenge you to tell me how the numerous senior citizens I saw at the protest could conceivably be accused of attempting to follow trends.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Man
Well, if you ask the U.S administration about this, they will most likely tell you, yes they have, these weapons but they aren't going to sell them to terrorists.
They may only now have learned their lesson regarding selling them to countries!
They are even less likely to use them, they are there as an established deterrent to any state that may develope or possess the same weapons.
The more píssed off, Sadam is with , the U.S the more likely, they think he is to help the pro liferation of those nasty substances.
The U.S stockpile of weapons are not a threat to western civilisation, unlike terrorism, if it involves weapons of mass distruction.
mm

Forgive me if I read too much into your post, but the following strikes me as important:

The US are unlikely to use their own weapons of WMD? OK, so why keep them? You say as a deterrent. I'll buy that, certainly their nuclear arsenal was maintained throughout the Cold War as the US's contribution to the concept of MAD.

However...are they a detterent now? Does the fact that the US has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons deter other states from seeking to obtain the same technology. Has the massive stock of Anthrax in the US stopped Saddam from trying to develop his own chemical and biological weapons? Not if we are to beieve the US reasons for invading Iraq they haven't.

So if the US (and lets not leave the other nuclear and chemically armed states in this, and not just the western states) maintains WMD to deter other states from acquiring them, then it has failed miserably, because they are proliferating. If it maintains them to convince states with their own WMD not to use them, for fear of retaliation, why invade Iraq? Surely deterrance ensures that the Iraqi regime would not use their alleged stocks of chemical and biological weapons. Sell them to terrorists? Thats a possibility, I do accept that. But the fact remains that the US is either prepared to use her own WMD in the future, and not simply as a deterrance, or she is not. If she is not prepared to use them, then the fear required for deterrance to work is absent.

I'm getting into a discussion I didn't want to get into. My original point was that there is a similar hypocricy involved here, with Sinn Fein arguing for the rule of international law, and the US/UK arguing that the invasion of Iraq is justified on the grounds of WMD/bringing freedom, when they have been responsible for denying freeom in the past, and propping up dictatorial regimes today who continue to deny their peoples freedom. And on the issue of proliferation of WMD, the US has a huge stock of chemical and biological weaponry which I consider to be immoral.

Originally posted by therecklessone
The US are unlikely to use their own weapons of WMD? OK, so why keep them? You say as a deterrent. I'll buy that, certainly their nuclear arsenal was maintained throughout the Cold War as the US's contribution to the concept of MAD.

However...are they a detterent now?

They are and always have been a deterrent against attack by other countries.
The fact that China has Nuclear weapons is reason enough for the U.S to hold onto theirs.
I wouldn't fancy, the world if , say the U.S verifyably unilaterally disposed of it's nuclear arsenal and China did not.
Margaraet Thatcher made a very valid point at the height of the cold war regarding the Soviet Unions invitation to the west to dis arm.
You cannot uninvent nuclear weapons. You can destroy your stockpile, but you will always have the technology and the means to produce more and therefore, the ability to threaten.

Having Nuclear and Biological weapons is no deterrent to terrorism though and never can be, when there are groups out there who may be fanatical enough to create armageddon without the rational consideration that governments would give to such a prospect.
That is the new threat, talked about even among, those countries on the UNSC opposed to this war.
Civilised countries always do their best to prevent proliferation but don't always suceed. But as I say most countries think rationally, terrorist extremists do not.
I've argued here before that in the case of North Korea,the U.S will persuade China to wield pressure on them.
Oil has muddied the water though, in Iraq as all the countries with influence want it
So the good old USA with the UK march on in, in the certain knowledge that if they didn't, whatever it is they fear about the security of whatever Sadam has left, or what he may be secretly producing would fester possibly into a much bigger problem.

Remember Sadam, knows all about the differences/divisions in the west and has been clever enough to be keenly exploiting that, weakened and all as his State aparatus is.
In my view, his drip , drip, give a little at the last, approach ( eg 1 or 2 samoods distructed a day ) could have been a way of spinning out a process as long as possible to make the U.S/UK position look intransigent and warlike.
Meanwhile, the inspectors at the behest of the other countries on the UNSC who want his oil aswell fumble around looking for stuff, probably for years, allowing Sadam to continue with his brutal regime, and probably increase any assistance to the haters of America. Thats a genuine worry on the part of the U.S and UK governments as it's those countries that would probably be first in the firing line.
The rest of us just suffer the consequences, ie a further slump in our economies.
mm

Sand

Only 20,000? Looks like the "stay at home if you support the war " protest enjoyed massive support.

I cant blame principled anti-war protestors for feeling violently ill when they see SF trying to act like theyre somehow morally superiour to politicians who arent connected by the hip to a group of thugs whove murdered 3000 innocents in the most brutally casual and indifferent fashion. What the anti war protestors have to realise though is that its very easy to be against something, but you also have to supply an alternative. If we dont want Saddam in power, if we dont want his brutality, if we dont want his search for WMD to be succesful - what do we do that will pretty much guaranteee success?

I agree that Saddam has rather cleverly sowed doubt and confusion amongst the very nations which should be allies in this - I remember that interview with him which was linked here where he talked about the peace protests around the world and how Iraq supported them and again, it was almost SF nausea inducing.

Personally, whilst Ive found a lot of people to be upset over the war, once youve talked to them a bit and challenged them to find a better way they do actually find themselves at least at the position where the war will result in a better way for the Iraqis.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sand

I cant blame principled anti-war protestors for feeling violently ill when they see SF trying to act like theyre somehow morally superiour to politicians who arent connected by the hip to a group of thugs whove murdered 3000 innocents in the most brutally casual and indifferent fashion.

But its not always the principled anti-war protesetors who are bringing this up. Its been used by virtually everybody on the pro-war and we-know-what-side-our-bread-is-buttered-on-national-interest-blah-blah side of the argument. Ruth Dudley Edwards? Kevin Myers? The Government?

As a marcher yesterday, I say this to you Sand. I don't have an alternative solution to Saddam. Well I did, but it was shot down by a number of people here recently, so I won't bring that up again. WMD? I'll have Hans Blix thank you, thought he was doing a reasonable job. As for bringing democracy to the Iraqi people, its a great idea in principle, but its not much use to them if we keep killing them before they get to experience their longed for freedom, is it???

http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/dead_iraqi.html

I'm open to persuasion that war is the solution, really I am. I am not a slave to the idea that war is never the answer, but I do believe it is the responsibility of the developed world to ensure it does as little as possible to encourage violent, undemocratic regimes. My problem with this conflict is that the case for war has not been proven. We have had spin and coercion, but very little rational debate. Since the conflict began, we've had uninformed opinion from reporters across the war zone, which has been taken as gospel. Gas masks given to Iraqi troops: proof of Saddam's WMD, or simply standard practise for modern warfare (how many NATO armies train in NBC warfare?)? Missile attacks on Kuwait: short range missiles, or banned Scuds? We've been left in little doubt what the TV news networks think anyway...

I've heard a number of media outlets referring to the US medal the Purple Heart as one of the highest honours bestowed upon a US serviceman. General Tommy Franks received three of them in Vietnam, but one newspaper claimed that details regarding what he did to deserve them were sketchy. Try looking in his medical records, the bloody thing is awarded to anyone injured in combat. If you want to know how prestigious they are, watch Band Of Brothers on UK Gold. The media has a war fog descending upon it, where any mention of military jargon has them wetting their panties. Frankly, I'm sick of it.

When Sky News stop driving the agenda for war, I might be prepared to listen to somebody who knows what they are talking about.

Cork

Originally posted by Sand
Only 20,000? Looks like the "stay at home if you support the war " protest enjoyed massive support.

I cant blame principled anti-war protestors for feeling violently ill when they see SF trying to act like theyre somehow morally superiour to politicians who arent connected by the hip to a group of thugs whove murdered 3000 innocents in the most brutally casual and indifferent fashion. What the anti war protestors have to realise though is that its very easy to be against something, but you also have to supply an alternative. If we dont want Saddam in power, if we dont want his brutality, if we dont want his search for WMD to be succesful - what do we do that will pretty much guaranteee success?

IAccording to TV3's teletext service - Gardai estimate that was about 8000 there. This was also noted in today's Sunday Indo. I do not know were RTE got the 20000 figure.

From a protest march of 100,000 a number of weeks ago to much smaller protest marchs yesterday - why has the the number on these marchs shrunk?

FG were not involved in Yesterdays march - maybe this was a factor.

But, I think many Anti-War people stayed away.

Is it the case, that protest marchs are a bit of a waste of time. Burning US flags on the streets of our capital does noting to advance the Anti-War cause. Neither does burning pictures of Bertie or waving Palastenian flags.

I think the Anti War movement should organise sending postcard mail shots to our politicians or organising public meetings.

Originally posted by therecklessone
When Sky News stop driving the agenda for war, I might be prepared to listen to somebody who knows what they are talking about.

actually, i'll have to correct, you on that one.
Tony Benn reviewed, the papers on Sky news on Friday, i think it was and he said Sky were doing a good job.
He said they were more balanced than the BBC.
Strange but true, i saw it myself.
And there must be something in that bearing in mind who said it!
mm

therecklessone

Originally posted by Man

He said they were more balanced than the BBC.

Then the BBC must be doing a thoroughly awful job. I've been watching a fair bit of Sky News, and it has been entusiastically pro-war. They have been very reluctant to believe anything the Iraqis have said, for example the Iraqi claim to have captured US servicemen was rubbished because (a) the US said they hadn't, and (b) if they had captured any they would have had them on TV wouldn't they?

Cue US troops on Arab TV shortly after. Any sign of Sky saying "sorry folks, got that one wrong"?

Originally posted by therecklessone
Then the BBC must be doing a thoroughly awful job. I've been watching a fair bit of Sky News, and it has been entusiastically pro-war. They have been very reluctant to believe anything the Iraqis have said, for example the Iraqi claim to have captured US servicemen was rubbished because (a) the US said they hadn't, and (b) if they had captured any they would have had them on TV wouldn't they?
Cue US troops on Arab TV shortly after. Any sign of Sky saying "sorry folks, got that one wrong"?

Well they were all saying that initially, you see, the Iraqi's don't allow embedded reporters ( not western ones anyhow...maybe Al Jazeera ??:rolleyes: ) with their troops , so one has to wait,for flagrant as opposed to sporadic breaches of the Geneva convention, for confirmation of these things on the Iraqi side.
Did any TV network apoligise by the way??
mm

invincibleirish

i was on the march and there were surely 20,000 if not more there, honestly the independant does not like the whole anti war thing but to report 8,000 is nothing but lying..

therecklessone

Originally posted by Man
Well they were all saying that initially, you see, the Iraqi's don't allow embedded reporters ( not western ones anyhow...maybe Al Jazeera ??:rolleyes: ) with their troops , so one has to wait,for flagrant as opposed to sporadic breaches of the Geneva convention, for confirmation of these things on the Iraqi side.

Fair point, but the reaction to the Iraqi claim was "well its unlikely they have any prisoners, because if they had they'd be showing them off wouldn't they...anyway the US are far more believable than the Iraqi regime, aren't they..."

Lets look at the facts:

Iraq claims its captured US servicemen. US denies it, then later accepts they have actually had some troops captured.

Iraq claims they have captured an Apache helicopter (albeit with a slightly off the wall tale of a farmer shooting it down with a WW2 ear rifle). US says no Apaches missing. Guess what? Thats right, Apache in Iraqi hands.

Then we have Blairs embarressing climbdown on the "execution" of British servicemen.

Lets face it, Sky News is the most widely viewed British satellite network, and it has unquestioningly reported the opinions of the Coalition politicians and commanders, whilst presenting alternative views in a sceptical manner...that is until they have to report the truth, but without a hint of irony.

Hardly a glittering performance of objectivity, and I stand by my original charge, regardless of what Tony Benn has had to say about the BBC.

Hobbes

I stopped watching SkyNews because of it's pro-war stance.

I don't mind news stories as long as they try to remain un-biased. Even BBC news is somewhat bias but SkyNews is practically the opposite of some of the hard line iraqi news stations.

I saw the after effects of the accidental bombing of Basra by the axis of diesel. It was sickening. While that was happening not a peep from SkyNews.

Instead they showed an Army PR shot where a group of soliders are trying to bazooka an iraqai building in a small town which they say holds soliders. What happens? They miss on thier first shot. :rolleyes:

Wook

I have been to the first 100K march against the war.
But since then this government did absolutly nothing...or rather actually helped the Americans get there faster.
I just find this country to be extremely weird in a sense that no matter what the public say's... this government does exactly what it wants, regardless of the population's wishes.
What amazes me even more is the amount of people complaining about other people walking the march and sitting with their own ass in the sofa watching RTE.

Off course you will have different groups joining up with the March. Whatever those groups agenda of being there , it doesnt matter.. as long as you are there for the right reasons. But all i can hear is cheap excuses and see a lot of finger-pointing by people who just stand aside and do nothing else but bitch.

Beruthiel

Originally posted by Wook
I have been to the first 100K march against the war.
But since then this government did absolutly nothing...or rather actually helped the Americans get there faster.

agreed Wook, I was also at the first march and the one last Saturday and will go again if there is another one. I find our governments lack of interest in what we have to say most frustrating!

Originally posted by therecklessone
Hardly a glittering performance of objectivity, and I stand by my original charge, regardless of what Tony Benn has had to say about the BBC.

well Tony Benn, given the voracity of his stance, on this war, carries a lot of weight, when he speaks about bias in the media.

You must remember in any war, that takes place today, with instant media coverage,initial denials by one of the fighting parties can be viewed as misinformation, but it's standard enough procedure.
In other words , expect a gap, between the event and confirmation.
If it was the case that there would be total denial, (as opposed to a checking of the facts first by either party) then, you would have loads of armed forces personell missing after the war, with no explanation...yet no deaths confirmed and obviously thats not and isn't going to happen.

Regarding , dismissing Iraqi information ministry claims, I would say, it's generally slightly less reliable information than, that coming from Quatar, clearly the latter is heavily one sided also.
mm

In regards to the Chemical/Biological/Nuclear deterrent:

They are and always have been a deterrent against attack by other countries.

Not true. Look at Iraq. The Allies are convinced that Iraq has these WMD's and yet, they're determined to destroy the regime. Having these weapons is no deterrent. However in the case of Russia, China, & the US, its not so much their having WMD's as the fact that these nations have the largest armies in the world.

I think the Anti War movement should organise sending postcard mail shots to our politicians or organising public meetings

When have our politicians ever cared about public opinion, especially when the majority of people wouldn't be part of such a campaign. The only time, these politicians will listen is coming up to the elections.

Regarding , dismissing Iraqi information ministry claims, I would say, it's generally slightly less reliable information than, that coming from Quatar, clearly the latter is heavily one sided also.

Regarding this area of the discussion, all info we receive about this war is highly suspect. Until this war is actually over, and independent coverage is performed, i'm going to suspect everything thats reported/released to the world. Each nation involved in this War will highlight what helps them, and ignore what doesn't. There will not be a clear picture given while operations are still being performed.

Originally posted by klaz

Not true. Look at Iraq. The Allies are convinced that Iraq has these WMD's and yet, they're determined to destroy the regime. Having these weapons is no deterrent. However in the case of Russia, China, & the US, its not so much their having WMD's as the fact that these nations have the largest armies in the world.

(firstly apoligies for the off topic nature of all this)
They are a deterrent in the hands of the permanent five members of the UNSC.
Even in the hands of the paranoid DPNK, as they know once they have them the U.S won't attack, even though they won't anyway.

With respect to Iraq, the U.S position is that they fear these weapons,may fall into terrorist hands.
Now that could happen in the former U.S.S R also, but at least theres less of a risk there of their stock piles being actively encouraged into the hands of Islamic extremists.

The U.S were prepared to accept Iraq as a country 20 years ago that would be acceptable as having a chemical capability obviously, especially when after the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, it looked like the whole region could be over run by Islamic extremist governments.
That wouldn't be a very nice scenario for the west, given that most of the worlds oil comes from there.

They have been quite clearly worried about Sadam's intentions for more than a decade and post 9-11, that worry has taken on a new urgency for them, in that they cannot again risk the islamic extremist opinion winning out.

Where I have a serious problem with this war, is the gung ho, Republican U.S government blindly using force to yet again solve a problem only to create millions of others ( ie U.S hating extremists ) but I recognise at this stage, there is no option but that the coalition should win,otherwise we are all damned.

The job of work then is to convince, the Americans that diplomacy is always a better shot than war.
I believe Tony Blair is performing a bigger than accepted role in that.
I was in the states a month ago, and the only anti war person I spoke to was a New York Taxi driver who was originally from Romania. Their 9-11 pain is still clouding what has to be done in the world to prevent such a thing happening again.
A lady in Maceys for instance, who lives in Manhattan told me she still can't go down to the trade centre site
And thats in a democrat stronghold, it's easy enough to see how support for war is found for Bush.
mm