Beagle, thankyou very much for the Link. I, like a lot of people on both sides of this debate are very conflicted by the choice, To use force to unseat Sadam or not.
I could be wrong, but I have heard very little opposition to the silent war that rages on in within Iraq. The only countries that have challenged this ongoing terror is America and the United Kingdom, but even these two have lost interest at times depending on the perception of danger to their own security.
I can understand opposition to Bush and Blair from within their countries because it is their son and daughters who will be put in harms way, but it irks me no end to listen to the anti-war protest from other nations in the world particularly the Belgians and the French. I can’t understand why they are so opposed to liberating Iraq which draws so many parallels with 1939 Germany. In any case why is the forceful termination of ongoing death and terror in Iraq preferable to a limited confrontation to remove this murderous regime?
Thus the anti-war protest in the rest of the world holds very little credibility for me. I hope the Bush and Blair stay focused on the realities on the ground in Iraq rather than on the streets of Europe.
The only photo I saw of the protests had a big A.N.S.W.E.R banner being held up by hundreds of people.
I’m familiar with this group. It’s a collection of old-style Stalinists. And they’ve been the main organizer of the war protests, at least in the United States.
Here’s their web site. Examine their lovely policy solutions for yourself, and ask yourself if you really want to be associated with them.
Me, if I felt strongly against something, but the protests against it were being organized by the Aryan Nations, I’d have to think twice about participating.
To answer the OP… No, I don’t think a small minority should be able to go out and shout down government policies. We have other mechanisms for removing leaders who are doing things we don’t agree with. It’s called voting.
Sam: Saw only one sign, in hundreds of photographs taken of millions of protestors worldwide? And it just happens to be of a group with a gnarly website. Shucks, too bad you weren’t in Vegas with that kind of luck!
No, I don’t think a small minority should be able to go out and shout down government policies. We have other mechanisms for removing leaders who are doing things we don’t agree with. It’s called voting."
We also have polling, and it is not a small minority who opposes the Bush administration’s determination to go to war in the next few weeks with or without a UN resolution. It is the majority of people in the United States. It is the majority of people in Britain. Need I go on?
There are truly many faces and a wide diversity of opinions within the peace movement. That rhetoric and differing causes will be talked about during rallies is only a symptom of the umbrella nature of the movement. No, everyone in the movement does not agree with everything that is suported by every group that works to organize rallies. But as there are about 250 or so different organizations that came together from all political affiliations, religions, ethnic groups, walks-of-life, etc. it is fairly hard to condemn as a group the movement for the actions of an associated member organization.
Coalition movements are haphazard and often contradictory. They unite for a common purpose but often spar on the details. But why should everyone have the same opinion as everyone else?
One more word to Sam, since I see something I’d meant to say got cut off. I don’t feel “associated” with A.N.S.W.E.R. simply because I join a protest that may include it or any other fringe group for that matter. They in no way constitute any kind of majority or dominant position; they were not the organizers of the New York rally or any other that I know of. For the same reason, I don’t feel “associated” with all of the posters on this board who may happen to share an opinion with me on one particular issue. As several posters have already made clear, both in this thread, and in december’s risible thread on America First, there is no monolith, there isn’t even a “movement” as such. There are plenty of disreputable organizations who support the Bush administration’s stance on war. Do you feel like their “associate”?
If we assume 1,000,000 (official estimate 750,000 but ignored those who went straight to Hyde Park, and made by police who habitually under-report, organiser and several newspaper est of 2 milliion) it is 10 - 20 times Wembly capacity, or for 1 mill it is 1 in every 60 man woman and child in the UK, or for 1-2 mill the equilavent of 6-12 million marching in NY, adjusted for pop. The biggest demo of all time in the UK and quite enough to demand we are listened to.
One in every 60 or one in every 30 people in the UK, depending on the figure, travelled to the capital of the UK to say No to war. That is overwhelming by any standard, attempts to trivialise it by comparison with sports events notwithstanding.
Point of info. size of Pro-war demo’s around the country = 0 (police estimate 287 million) so don’t give us that tired crap about it ain’t a majority.
When the poeple speak like this in a democracy politicians have to listen whether or not they think us correct otherwise it ain’t worth the name.
As a life-long Labour supporter I guarantee I will never, ever, voe for them again if blair proceeds with this war and you can be sure i’m bot alone in this. Blair is finished if he ignores this protest like the Poll Tax protests finished Thatcher.
Yes, I did. You said that they were not the organizers of any rally that you knew of. I responded by pointing to their web site, which shows that they organized many of the rallies, or at least were prime movers.
But that’s all I was trying to say. Certainly, you can’t be held responsible for the views of ANSWER. In fact, if I were someone who was opposed to the war I’d be pretty annoyed that these stalinist, free Mumia types were involved.
Your website shows that they were promoting February 15th as a protest day. Unless I missed something I was supposed to see, it did not name ANSWER or WWP as the organizers of any specific 2/15 rally.
There has been discussion about WWP’s role in organizing some protests in the past in, for example, the Nation, including bad decisions made by them in the past as to speakers etc. I am aware of the group as one that has caused some debate in left circles: they are experienced organizers but their agenda doesn’t reflect the majority of people likely to join an anti-war protest at the present moment. However, the New York rally was not organized by ANSWER or WWP; and there were literally hundreds if not thousands of groups involved. Whether any major 2/15 rally was organized either by WWP or by ANSWER I cannot say b/c I do not know. But I do know that 2/15 had been marked far and wide as a day of worldwide protests. I saw e-mails from groups such as Not in my Name, Move On, as well as various teachers groups and environmental groups that tend to reach my notice. If I happened to live in a city where WWP/Answer happened to have been the ones to get the permit from the city for a 2/15 protest it would not have deterred me from joining this worldwide statement. Why? Because it is not in the nature of a worldwide protest involving hundreds of thousands in large cities and millions worldwide to feel responsbile to every single group that may be involved–even if that group got the permit. The overarching message of the protests was no war now: depending on the individual that might mean no war ever, no war without a UN resolution, no war until inspections have been given a chance, etc. etc.
Now, since I’ve given you a second and more thorough answer to a point you raised by you, perhaps you’d like to comment on the rest of my post.
How about a reply to this part: *…t is not a small minority who opposes the Bush administration’s determination to go to war in the next few weeks with or without a UN resolution. It is the majority of people in the United States. It is the majority of people in Britain. Need I go on?
Beagle, are you trying to this thread into your own news service? A replacement for Agence France Press, perhaps?
According to Tomndebb in this thread, ANSWER was involved in organizing the San Francisco rally, but not the New York rally.
But you know, in that same thread I listed all of the affiated organizations for the ‘Stop The War’ coalition, and it’s the same motley collection of old stalinists, communists, socialists, ‘anti-racism’ organizations that make up ANSWER.
A friend who participated told me that MoveOn was the organizer or, at least, one of the organizers. MoveOn is an internet-based organization, originally formed to defend Bill Clinton, when he was impeached. I presume MoveOn must be closer to the Democratic Party than to some radical organization.
Well, that depends on how you read the polling numbers. The latest polls I’ve seen show that if you ask the basic question, “Do you support the administration’s plans for war against Iraq”, the support is somewhere between 60-70%, which is astoundingly high.
On the other hand, if you ask, “Should the U.S. go to war against Iraq even if it has to act alone”, support drops to well below 50%. But, if you ask, “Should the U.S. go to war without the security council, as long as it still has a large coalition?” support is almost as high as the first question.
When people are asked questions like, “Do you think Saddam has weapons of mass destruction”, or “Do you think Saddam is in violation of UN resolutions”, you get support up in in the 80 percent range.
Here’s an interesting UK poll which highlights the confusing nature of the polls. Look at these weird results:
I am absolutely baffled how 74% of the people can think that Saddam has forbidden chemical and biological weapons, 71% believe he’s hiding weapons from the U.N. inspectors, and yet 62% of people didn’t think that Colin Powell’s evidence was reasonable proof, and 21% thought he was faking his evidence. I guess the real variable we’re seeing there is dislike of the U.S., and not the belief that Saddam has WMD.
But look at this:
The most reasonable way to read that data is that the British people Believe that Saddam is a problem and would support a war in massive numbers with a UN SC resolution. However, if they had SOME UN support, but not a resolution, 62% of the people support a war.
I think this reveals a sophistication about what the French are up to. The British people are ready to discount the French. They’re saying, “Look, if it seems that France is the only stumbling block here, we’ll still support a war.”
But clearly, with responses all over the map like this, partisans on both sides can find just the right combination of questions to ‘prove’ whatever they want to prove.
As much as I love to point out that unreconstructed Stalinists are playing a prominent role in the peace movement - and I do - it really does not matter. If the support is broad based enough, the organizers become somewhat irrelevant. Unless one believes that the WWP of Judea somehow hoodwinked everyone, all millions of them, to show up.
I’ve had some discussions about whether the mainstream press covers the peace movement fairly. I’m just pointing out that the demonstrations got maximum coverage from all the news outlets, whatever the supposed slant. I thought one post with links to all the gushing press would hearten some jaded folks around here.
I think the New York rally was organized by a group called United for Peace, in collaboration with another group called Peace Action. I don’t know where tom’s info comes from but according to this Peace Action website, they may have been organizers of San Francisco’s event as well–or perhaps just promoters like so many other groups.
Here is the website for United for Peace. This British group the Stop the War Coalition, claims to have organized the London rally along with two other groups: the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and the Muslim Association of Britain (links are available).
I have received some impressive e-mails from this recent New York-based group, Not in Our Name. This group, MoveOn has been successfully raising money in order to air anti-war TV commercials. Peaceful Tomorrow, a group begun by families of 9/11 victims claims to have been among the lead speakers at both the New York and San Franciso rallies.
I could devote much more time to this, but I think you’ll see enough here to realize that not every organization involved in protesting the war is linked to or particularly invested in the WWP. Indeed, if I’m not mistaken the Vatican has come out against the war. If so,do you think that the Pope is now “associated” with ANSWER?
And now perhaps you might want to comment on the simple fact that even putting these unprecedented protests aside, this is a very unpopular war: lacking unconditional support amongst a majority even in the United States.
