Subject - cgrapski comment
Author name - revrobb
Date - 26-1-2003
The idea that promoting peace means abandoning justice or is politically irresponsibile ignores how Apartheid was dismantled. (Not to mention the impact of figures like Gandhi and King on matters of internal national injustices). I believe that those who devalue and label "peaceniks" are really saying that war is more expedient than peace. That it seems is an accurate criticism of those who advocate for peace.
Subject - This is posted under "Iraqi Voices" debate also
Author name - erinleonard
Date - 21-2-2003
My sense with ninety percent of what I read, not only on this website, but also with many other sources, is that fundamentally ordinary people want the same thing in regards to Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his clan-of-thugs-and murders must gowhere and how variesbut no one, outside those inside Iraq, denies the vile legacy of his regime. And most want every peaceful resolution tried and exhausted to disarm Iraq before war for the sake of peace is unleashed.
The international protest this last Saturday, February 15th, was truly the most powerful historical event I have ever witnessed. Talk as I may about the human family this was the first time I really felt part of itliterally felt itwith all my heart. Who cares if the official number of people who showed up was eight million or fourteen million, in almost if not every country across the planet, people were en mass out in the street saying NO to needless human suffering by waging war when other means still have yet to be exhausted.
We, the Human Family, need to in tandem also let it be known, we are also no longer tolerant of any political leader, party, or regime that is guilty of capital crimes against its own people. The missed opportunity of the international demonstrations is the place cards, banners, chants, needed to give Saddam and Company the message we may want peaceful resolution but we intend to rid the world of them in the process.
Bush can call the millions of people in the streets a focus group all he wants to. We know the numbers did cause a great alarm to any politician. The pity is we forgot to address Saddam Hussein directly.
Subject - douglas murray's article
Author name - ppitha
Date - 21-2-2003
will someone who was at the London rally please address Murray's characterization? (I am from the U.S.) I bet you there were a lot of ordinary schlumphs like myself not affiliated with some old Trotskyist party. My observation of rallies here is that the organizations pass out the signs and people carry them. I wish people would be less sheep-like, but because I have overall agreement with the demands of the demonstrations, I go to them. I make my own signs.
I don't know all the ins and outs of the British left or the Muslim groups, so I can't comment on that. But in any demonstration there are going to be vocal, organized minority voices who want to influence the mass and get their slogan out on top, add their agenda to the "laundry list". Can't help that. I do think that at a certain point it adds to confusion and puts words in the mouths of people they aren't really saying. A rally against war in Iraq can be just that, it doesn't have to also be about Israel/Palestine. Maybe things are different in Britain, but here I think the leadership is very cautious about how the rallies will be characterized, so they strike a pretty liberal note overall. There were plenty of signs with pictures of Iraqi children; plenty of Bush No, Saddam No signs or the equivalent. I don't understand people who say we're letting Saddam Hussein off the hook: his country is crawling with inspectors, and as far as I'm concerned, that can continue as long as we all want it to. He can't sneeze without it being noticed!
Subject - Politics of Convenience and Ease
Author name - Jon Bleakley
Date - 21-2-2003
This is a fundamental problem in Western society today: People are doing whatever makes the most visual impact with the least effort or moral courage. It is easy to say that war should be avoided, it is easy to say that "appeasement" (as we are so reluctant to call what is happening between the UN and Saddam) has resulted in nothing too bad so far, it is easy to criticise an administration that lives up to its promises. The last administration (Im American so you know who I am referring to) pointed the same finger and even went so far as to rather convincingly justify destructive action against Saddam, but balked and fell short of taking decisive action. Just as it is easy for a president to launch a missile towards a single enemy target, it is easy to speak out against launching a campaign against the enemy himself. Maybe if we wait and see what Saddam decides to allow the world to see of his weapons programs it will all just time out...or maybe not. Without someone with the courage to stop wrong where it is spotted, to protect those who (often unbeknownst to them) need protecting, and to back up what all too often are empty threats, there will be noone to protest. I applaud dissent, it is the most fundamental form of checks and balances. But it will not exist if those who do not allow it are allowed to expand their power.
Subject - Marching to War
Author name - Colin Baldy
Date - 22-2-2003
I wonder precisely what Douglas Murray's motives are in the way he has been reporting anti-war marches around the globe? Yes, there were vocal minorities, as on any march, but the significance of February 15th was the number of first-timers. He did at least acknowledge this fact but negated the impact of this acknowledgement by talking down to all of these people and by dismissing them as a bunch of left-over left-wingers. I have news for Mr Murray; there were hundreds of thousands of people marching who held views representative of the entire political spectrum. These were decent, honest British citizens who do not feel that there is either sufficient evidence that Saddam's regime is not co-operating with UN resolutions or that the Bush-Blair axis is doing anything other than acting according to their baser gut instincts. These same decent men and women are just as appalled by the atrocities which have undoubtedly been perpetrated by the Iraqi regime as Douglas Murray purports to be but simply nuking Saddam out of existence will solve nothing. Until Bush and Blair grow up and start to confront the real problems afflicting that benighted area of the globe (and despite my horror at the atrocities being inflicted on innocent Israelis, the Israel/Palestine conflict IS a running sore which will ensure that one half of the world continues to confront the other half until it is addressed), this war will simply be another in a long list of pointless wars which achieve nothing. One thing is certain, however; Douglas Murray will undoubtedly continue putting his inflamatory opinions into print but, at least they are just that; his opinions. Opinions, as we know, are not reality.
Subject - Can we have some discussion here?
Author name - ppitha
Date - 22-2-2003
The tone of this board is not as bad as some, but can we get away from individual-to-individual conversations and defensive rants? Can we have a real exchange and discussion? Some suggestions:
- Douglas Murray's article criticizes the UK 2/15 demonstration. Let's talk about demonstrations. He makes some valid point. Does a minority view taint the whole crowd? How do we make sure there is a clear message? Is it even possible? How do we stick to one point and not dilute the issue?
I think I gave some of my opinion on this earlier. I feel demonstrations are a limited means of expression. Especially now, when there has not been a lot of grassroots organizing, people are all over the place, so minority voices appear to dominate. I think it's a problem!
- Doug and bigjohn criticize the demos for being too anti-American and not enough anti-Saddam. Is it true? What is your experience? Is it a problem?
My opinion is: I have yet to attend a demo that was truly anti-American. (Maybe Europe is different.) Sure they're anti-Bush. Some individuals are rude about it. I think everyone (both sides) needs a thicker skin, and we also need to get more serious. It's not about who does the best name calling.
Not enough anti-Saddam? Perhaps, though I have seen at least some anti-Saddam posters at every demo. My thing is that Saddam isn't the worst baddie around, and with all eyes on him, he's virtually powerless. It's the guys we're not watching that I'm worried about. Pakistan is a definite trouble zone!
Subject - Will try hard
Author name - erinleonard
Date - 22-2-2003
Apologies ppitha. Being new to debate boards, I think my putting the person's name in as the subject as response to something they have said is a problem.
People who attend the recent marches do seem to be all over the place. I think Rosemary Bechler's essay, "Being Counted," was an excellent juxtaposition to Douglas Murray's piece. And perhaps Mr. Murray is dead-on with the minority view tainting the whole crowd, as the messages on this board attest to. Demonstrations are a limited means of expression and I believe that you can have a diverse group with splintered agendas and still have a clear message by taking a good look into the faces of the crowd. The minority is labelled a minority for obvious reasons. Nobody's fooled, though those who disagree with the clear message will use the minority as scapegoat.
I live in a small city. In the last march, four thousand people showed from all walks of life. Yes, there was anti-Bush puppets...but nothing overtly anti-American, although I live in the United States and the majority of the four thousand walking were American citizens exercising their right to stand up and speak out, some on the extreme right would probably think so.
Subject - ppitha
Author name - LOR
Date - 23-2-2003
Well young lady, some times individual conversations in here serve a better function than responding to articles from people who dont really care if you, or I even exist. The message is diluted, only if everyone on the line really has the same agenda. Put 800,000 or two million people together and try to get a consensus? What you are seeing on the marches is the reason that there are no real democracies in the world. Rather different degrees of republics. What is the real goal of the marches, does any one really know. Thanks to erinleon, I will attend the next one, and my goal is to tell my officials, I do not want this war, but I do NOT support Saddam. Can you tell me how many others have the same goal. Now if they dont, if in there hearts and minds, they serve another agenda, well yes they have diluted everyones message because no ones message is clear. As an American, I can tell you, if the protesters expect the U.S. to pay attention, then the message what ever it is needs to be clear and unified. None of us, have all the facts, and we should make it clear, our response is based on the facts we have. If there is more information please present it. Depending on which section of which city you looked at, some messages were to anti american ,while others appeared to be anti war, and anti saddam. So depending on which video you watch will determine your view of the protest. Also there is a good deal of Parroting, people repeating the same message, and when asked for back up, you find they have no idea if the information is factual or not, they are simple parroting something they heard. This causes doubt about the validity of either side of the issue. So you see, in some cases, single conversations on this message board are more useful
Subject - Words vs. Image
Author name - erinleonard
Date - 25-2-2003
The language we use to tell history depends on the language that was used in all the history books weve read. One persons imperialist is anothers occupational force. The power that words have over us with their endless combinations explaining who we are and what we believe.
What about power and language through image? What if we took a six year-old child, one who could read simple words in one language, set that child in a movie theater, and started playing news reel after news reel of all the marches all over the globe of February 15th? Let the child watch the ten to twelve million people, from all walks of life, marching in cities and towns all across the globe. When the lights came up, we would ask only one question, Why were all those people marching?
The message is six year-old simple. And I can just anticipate the responses this will bring and all those who march thinks as a six year-old would for solution. Bullshit. The message was quite clear in all the different language and reasons used, war at this time, for these reasons, is not acceptable for solution to the problems stated.
In this debate, I have quoted Rosemary Bechlers, Being Counted, and I would like to do so again: Many of the people who marched on Saturday and who will march again for as long as there is a chance of a better world, did so because in many different ways they have glimpsed the inadequacy of the old resort to force. They have peered over the brink and contemplated a world in which even as a last resort massive superior force may not always be effective. It is a fearful thought. It is a very new thought. But it is not going to go away We need a new debate on when the use of military force is effective, and when it is not; equally, to work out how best to strengthen our own race relations and democracies; especially, we need to find more ways of linking local wisdoms to the global.
Something irreversible may have been achieved. The unique and peculiar character was its global nature. Of course we can understand Iraqi voices. They rightly want to see an end to the suffering of their benighted country and its people. But the issues at stake in the prospective use of force are issues which touch on the security of everyone, and future generations. We are now engaged in the beginning of a global response to one of the most pressing global questions of all. Again, thank you, Rosemary.
Subject - intransigence
Author name - emptyaperture
Date - 27-2-2003
the various recent marches and demonstrations that i have attended in washington dc (in addition to one most recently in amsterdam) have, of course, been immensely empowering and emotionally fortifying for those who have shared the experiences. such events are essential to sustain the recognition of support for resolute peace couriers who are not represented by the policies of their (purportedly democratic) governmental administrations. it is imperative that the disenfranchised but engaged citizens of the world exhibit their peaceful convictions and positions about the current calamity. however, protests and the like have ostensibly become a conventional gathering, expected and ignored by officials. because these events are not particularly expedient politically (no immediate change is implemented by actual lawmakers), their efficacy may often be limited to that of a vehicle of encouragement and communication among peaceful activists. one critical objective is to convince and stimulate uncertain, ambivalent or withdrawn individuals, as well as reluctant supporters of the war, in order to generate more public support. most critical is the element of applied legislative action, local referendums can be organized through contact with congresspeople. the current movement is expanding exponentially to exceptional size and is thus more difficult (and more deplorable) to be merely dismissed by the warmongers. it is also unified globally. i urge all of you to continue to be involved in these demonstrations and to propagate peace wherever you land, continuously disseminating the impartial information along with the moral conviction in a cogent manner. do not ignore misinformed or insecure war supporters. confront them with the ineluctable facts and convince them. it should not be particularly difficult considering the draconian rhetoric that emerges from the white house. i doubt that it has been swallowed straightfaced by any being that could be considered sapient.
