John, for a poll with wildly differing results, please consult my Sunday Times links.
John, I pointed out the “ridiculous bias” in the poll question you’re using as a basis for your subsequent flat assertions, including pointing out the words you chose to leave out for reasons best known to yourself. That is sticking to the facts, which you were not doing. But I’m sure you will do so in the future.
Since before the first ‘Stop the War’ march it’s been my view the ‘left’ and the whole anti-war campaign has been extremely unfocused, emotionally driven and lacking substantive alternative arguments; it looks like a rabble without intellectual rigour and, once you see those banners that read everything from ‘Palestine Now’ to ‘Free Tibet’ and ‘Save the Fucking Whale’ one starts to cringle at the naively and cluelessness (sic).
It comes as no surprise (to me) that once people are asked simple, direct questions it tends to expose the fragility of an emotional, poorly defined posture – it’s not that they’re right or wrong, it’s that they haven’t thought things through beyond emotional knee-jerking.
I’m sympathetic to anything that reins in a single capitalist super power because I fear it’s inherently unhealthy, but there is no leadership in this movement, no single coherent purpose and no voice explaining in clear, simple terms what we can now do instead that is better – being ‘anti’ something is fine, but in being ‘anti’ you are obligated to propose an alternative. And in my view, one that *would not include *a bunch of inconsistent ‘laws’ and ‘Resolutions’ made on an ad hoc basis and revered by a bunch of white, Christian, capitalist, first-word self-serving shits at the United Fucked Up Nations.
IMHO, things will not improve by relying on so-called ‘international law’ when the entire basis of ‘international law’ looks more (self-serving) early Victorian than 21st century.
And as for ‘Stop the war’ the name tends to give it away; there never was a ‘war’ and the length of the occupation depends on the deals the US does with Europe/UN, not on this unfocused shower.
And I haven’t even touched on the issue of being torn between being ‘anti’ Bush yet feeling an obligation to be ‘pro’ the UK forces.
In short, I think the poll reflects a very confused public.
Thanks, London_Calling, that’s a very sincere and well-written post that must have been hard to write.
I “supported” (in the sense I had unease but thought it was the right thing to do and we shouldn’t twiddle our thumbs anymore) the war, but am saddened by what’s happening over there now. But I won’t pick up a sign and join those protestors because, as I watched, appalled, on CSpan a few weeks ago, it would look like I was supporting the same cliched bunch of leftist causes that I’ve mostly rejected at this point as too simplistic. Speaker after speaker got up–women’s rights, Amerindian rights, Middle Eastern and Palestinian rights (the only justified link IMO), abortion rights, anti-capitalism, radical Greens, anti-Jerry-Falwell, Free Mumia, blah blah blah.
I don’t want to pick up a banner against the occupation if it means I’m lumped in with pro-abortion and cop-killer-supporting marchers in the eyes of the world, I’m sorry, but I just don’t. And LC is so right about the alternative–“US OUT NOW!” is not much of an answer, esp. with Saddam insisting that he’s just waiting to come right back into power. As I’ve said before, I’m a moderate Dem. And a very confused member of the public.
Correct use of “it’s”. That’s something seen rarely, these days.
Knee-jerk, touchy-feelie, masturbational politics, yup, you’ve summed them up quite nicely.
I agree with many of your points, London_Calling and Mehitabel, with regards to the focus of the ‘Stop The War’ Campaign. I was against the invasion of Iraq when it was proposed, I marched against it then. I will be in London on Thursday, not because I believe that I (or the other people who may be there) have better answers for what to do next, but as a continuing protest against what has been done in our name. Because I don’t want to see Blair and Bush claiming any lack of protest as a message of support for them (“if you’re not against us, you’re with us” as it were). Yes, I’m confused, yes it is essentially a negative protest (I know we can’t pull out of Iraq tomorrow, although I see “we’ve” now resorted to exploding bits of it again, no I don’t really know what we can do in the short term), but at the moment it’s all we can do.
It’s a shame, but no surprise, that protests can be hijacked so easily. I know a lot of people who marched in the earlier anti-war marches, and became completely disillusioned when (I think it was) Tony Benn proclaimed at a rally that “one million people are marching for a free Palestine”. Excuse me? Did we miss a memo?
You missed nothing, Crusoe. The “leaders” of these “Peace movements” are thoroughly unscrupulous and self-serving. They don’t give a damn about anything but their pet causes and will happily hijack the sheeple who bleat behind them.
Well, I sympathize with the UK folks who are emphasizing the cost of the Bush visit at a time when there is substantial domestic opposition to his policies.
You should follow the example of the U.S. - we never spend any money to host and protect foreign dignitaries unless they are overwhelmingly loved and appreciated by the populace.
It’s the law.
ABC showed brief footage of Bush’s helicopter slipping into the Buckingham Palace courtyard at night, unannounced. Fortunately a cameraman was in range. The normal procedure would have been the horse-drawn carriage down the flag-bedecked Mall in front of admiring crowds.
What does it say that the * President of the United States* now has to sneak in under cover of night when visiting one of our closest friends? I shed a tear over what he’s done to us all.
London, the lack of focus on the part of protesters you object to may simply show the width of the range of things there are to protest, and the width of the range of solutions that would be better than what we have. The world is complicated and appropriate actions are complicated, too - the strength of diverse opinions is that it makes the best ones more likely to appear. The weakness it indicates is of the policies and administration and leadership that need to be protested - if Bush wasn’t fucking up and pissing people off across sio much of the board, he wouldn’t be dealing with so many fucked-up situations and pissed-off people.
But if the protesters did what you want and stuck to a few consistent soundbite slogans, I fear you’d dismiss them as simpleminded yobs instead. How can they win with you? I’ll simply point out the fallacy of your lumping a highly-diverse group together under a single name (“protesters” in this case) and them dismissing them for that very diversity.
Oh, and **Dogface[/b}? Who are these “leaders” you speak of and why do you call them that? You’d have to at least know some names to know if they’re “thoroughly unscrupulous and self-serving” and so forth, wouldn’t you?
Or is it simply easier to denounce than to think?
For the record, this is what our £10 million got us, security-wise.
The hijacking of any political movement is always irritating. The Socialist Workers Party are a particularly annoying bunch of knob-ends. However, this does not negate the original point of the march.
Thus, through my patent Dogface => Common Sense translator, we have:
Some of the leaders of these peace movements are thoroughly unscrupulous and self-serving. Some of them don’t give a damn about anything but their pet causes and will happily attempt to hijack the protest.
Isn’t this the crux of the matter - there is no point (singular) to the march? It’s the usual wankers-against-everything brigade; every disaffected person with a grievance - any grievance - is using this as an opportunity to vent.
There is no organisation or focus in this - which is why it isn’t in any way credible.
List of possible issues: (off the top of my head)
Guantanamo Bay Prisoners
Environmentalism (rejection of Kyoto)
GM crops
Human Rights (Perceived issues with Patriot Act)
Perceived lies about Iraq WMD
Pre-emptive strategies in War
Unilateralism – Denial of UN Authority
International Criminal Court
Deaths of Servicemen in war
Contract Awards for Oil to US companies – Perception of Cronyism
Rejection of agreement to enforce the ban on biological weapons
Support of the military coup in Venezuela
History of Capitalist Imperialism
Steel / Trade Tariffs
Before anyone starts, I am not attempting to defend any/all of these positions, nor forward them as all objective or defendable – but surely it is obvious if you have 100,000+ people marching, all of them will have different priorities and focus on the varied facets of the Bush Administration they either know or care most about. It would be impossible to single out one specific issue and expect everyone in the protest to be in complete agreement on it. I think the very fact there is so much variety and choice available to protest against leads one to the conclusion that there really are serious concerns with how the current US administration is perceived (in the UK) or how they are seen to be acting.
Again, some of the protestors are the usual suspects, but most of the others are there because they are anti the Iraq war. Simple.
In the light of Aro’s post I should clarify: there have been separate marches about many of the issues. The main march is about the Iraq war.
Whatever one’s position on any of these issues, it is instantly apparent that there is no coherence here.
What common cause can the people who are worried about the award of oil contracts have with the people who have got their knickers in a knot about GM crops? (In fact I bet that they disagree about everything).
Disorganised, incoherent and not credible.
The fuzzy-minded led by nasty bastards.
His helicopter flew over my house last night (within SAM range too).
I think their common denominator is the wish to disparage Bush and to show their disapproval for his methods and policies. Any policies, any methods.
But I do agree there would be little else to galvanise an otherwise disparate group of people, normally.