Who are you criticising? The list I posted was a direct answer to the OP, and came from the web sites of the organizations claiming to be responsible for organizing the demonstrations. Antechinus added to the list, feeling that I had somehow ‘selected’ my list randomly or something. I replied that I didn’t, and that the list I posted was the entire contents of the ‘coalition organization’ pages from the web site of one of the main organizers.
It seems to me that this whole thread, with the exception of Spit’s question about salaries and David Simmon’s comment about the ‘bogey man de jour’, has been directly on point.
Strictly speaking, that’s not exactly what you did is it? You added your own headings and perjorative comments too. For the record you put some organisations under the wrong heading anyway and you missed Keele University AUT, which counts as “leaving a single one off”.
If I missed one, it was by accident, obviously. And sure, I organized them by affiliation, and by my attempt to inject a little humor. I never said I didn’t. But I think your criticism falls into the category of ‘excessive nitpicking’.
If they are not breaking any laws that would bar them from voting (such as felonies), then they have every right to vote, whether you find it annoying or not. Unless you want to repeal that part of the Constitution that guarantees their right to vote…
Well, considering that your first post in this thread, or at least the quote that you used to made your argument for you, effectively accused some anti-war protesters of anti-Americanism, it might be worth pointing out to you that it is the US Constitution and its Amendments that accord people the right to vote.
In case you’re not familiar with it, may i recommend:
I’m glad that you have the leisure time to comment on other’s posts. When I see a post that seems to me to be looking for some evil, anti-American conspiracy, combined with Osama (old “wanted dead or alive”) bin Laden for a while and now Saddam Hussein coupled with scare stories about anthrax, smallpox, noxious gasses that call for duct tape and plastic sheeting countermeasures, I think immediately of sarcasm.
If that bothers you I guess that’s your cross to bear. If you disapprove of my posts I guess that’s a cross I have to bear, and I think I can manage it.
Could it be that some of these organizations behind the peace demonstrations could have ties to Al-Qaeda (sp), or Iraq? It seems to me that every country probably has its own group that would organize such demonstrations in other countries as an attempt to gain the support of the press, and the people in the US.
BTW: The links given to the various organizations, thus far, have been very informative to me.
Well, the larger organisations - the trade unions and so forth - are very unlikely to have such links. Similarly with the political parties, and some of the more focussed lobby groups (the Green organisations, for instance, or the Northern Ireland Peace People).
Could any of the smaller organisations have such links? Conceivable but, I would have thought, unlikely, at any rate so far as links to Al-Qaeda go. I would have thought that al-Qaeda will welcome a US-led war against Iraq. It will damage and very possibly destroy an Iraqi regime that they find extremely distasteful, while at the same time lending apparent support to their argument that the US/the West is broadly anti-Islamic and anti-Arab, rather than simply anti-fundamentalist. It seems to me that al-Qaeda has more to gain than to lose from this war.
I think it’s safe to assume that many of the Arab organisations mentioned do have links to Iraq; it would surprise me greatly, for instance, if the Iraqi Network for Human Rights did not. The same goes for the Islamic and Kurdish organisations.
Do any of them have links to the Iraqi government? Possibly.
It’s probably worth adding that, for demonstrations of this size attracting this kind of support, the involvement of many of the smaller organisations in the organising committee is probably not very relevant; the demonstration would be pretty much the same, in terms of how many turn out and what is said, whether they are involved or not.
Although not wanting to be associated with various single-issue pressure groups and vocal minorities did cross my mind briefly, in the end I decided that I didn’t give a shit who organised this weekend’s protest - IIRC in Dublin it was mainly Sinn Féin and the Socialist Workers Party, neither of whom I remotely agree with. The reason for the surprising volume of the marches (in Ireland and the UK) was that the majority of people on them were unaffiliated.
I can’t speak for who actually was involved in the organising of the peace rallies here in Australia, but the leaders of 3 of the five major political parties, Labor, (Simon Crean) the Democrats (Andrew Bartlett) and the Greens (Bob Brown) all spoke at rallies around the country. The Lord Mayor of Brisbane, at least, also spoke. Many other state and federal politicians marched as well.
(the two partiesd not reperesented are of course the ones who are in coalition and have sent 2,000 of out military people to the Gulf already)
Simon Crean, as the leader of the Labor party has a good chance of becoming head of Australia’s next government.
To try to pass 10 million people off as supporters of the extreme left is called burying your head in the sand. Whoever organised the rallies, the fact is it was ordinary people in their millions who turned out to say ‘we don’t want this war’
FWIW the list of sponsoring organisations and individuals for the Dublin parade can be seen here: http://irishantiwar.org
The organisations include lthe Labour Party, the Green Party Sinn Fein and the Socialist Party, all of whom have national parliamentary representation, a number of other leftish political groups, which don’t, and a couple of organisations like the NGO Peace Alliance (an alliance of 35-40 non-governmental agencies involved in overseas development work and/or community relations) and US Citizens in Ireland for Alternatives to War (an organisation I know nothing about, but which I suspect has come into existence fairly recently).
Individual sponsors include politicians from the parties mentioned, trade unionists, and a couple of singers and writers.
There were no Arab or Islamic organisations listed as sponsors, althought the invited speakers did include one from the Kurdish Community in Ireland and one from the Islamic Cultural Centre. I know nothing about the Kurdish Community in Ireland; so far as I know the Islamic Cultural Centre is a well-established body which serves the Irish Muslim community and whose main focus is not on campaigning or politics.
This is the first time that this has ever succeeded in the history of parliament. It is only symbolic, but means that he is not supported by a majority of the senate.
He also in power due to a favourable historical event.
FWIW, I considered going on the March here in Melbourne but decided not to when I found that its organisers included groups such as the Green Left (aka the Socialist Left aka the trotskyites) the Greens, etc. I couldn’t bring myself to be involved in anything that might support these groups.
I wouldn’t like to speculate on peoples’ motives but I suspect that there would have been more people at the Melbourne March (last estimate I heard of the crowd was 150,000) if: the March hadn’t been on the evening of Valentine’s Day; had been better promoted; and people had been more happy to associate themselves with its organisers.
Is it likely that other people were discouraged from attending because they were aware who the organisers were? Is it likely that the organisers deliberately played down who they were prior to the event (though not during) in order to avoid discouraging people from coming?
auliya your comment about Simon Crean having a good chance of leading the next Australian Government seems a bit unlikely given the fact that his approval rating in the latest Newspoll survey today shows a further drop in his public approval rating to 31% (compared to 48% for the PM, whose approval rating has also dropped). Isn’t that sort of comment more appropriate for IMHO or some other such forum?
Antechinus It might be worth pointing out to our non-Australian readers that the no-confidence motion against the PM was only passed because the Senate is controlled by opposition parties. It is also worth noting that censure motions have been passed by the Senate against PMs from both sides before.
Your comment about why he is in power may or may not be true but is rather misleading in this forum and more appropriate for GD or some other such forum, don’t you think?
It’s good to know that we’ve got someone here who is more concerned with where people’s comments should be than with offering anything of substance. Your de facto moderator’s role has been duly noted, and you’ve been recommended to the Board for promotion. :rolleyes:
And if you’re going to be so anal about what should be where, it would behoove you to read the question posed by the OP, which asked:
Your first paragraph barely addresses these questions; it is largely a political rant, and as such should be elsewhere, if we are to apply your rigid formula.
Also, i note that you only take to task people whose views on this thread you disagree with. Where’s your criticism of all the GD-worthy and IMHO-worthy comments by others? Or do you only seek to silence or exile those who disagree with you?
**
Sorry you took it that way but it was not intended as such
**
**
Since when is it not legitimate to address other posters comments rather than directly addressing the OP?
**
**
It wasn’t meant to address the OP nor was it meant to be a political rant. Looking over it again, I still don’t think it was a rant. I simply said I didn’t go to the march because I didn’t want to be associated with some of the organisers. I can’t see where I made any pejorative comments about them. It was intended to provide a preamble to my following questions, which asked if it was likely that people other than myself would have been discouraged from attending due to the nature of some of the organisers and whether the organisers might have kept a low profile for that reason. I did also prefix these comments with “FWIW”.
**
Not really, it just so happens that the two comments I addressed discussed Australian politics. Until very recently I worked in the Australian political industry (for over 6 years) and, as such, I restricted myself to issues that I happen to know a lot about. I was simply offering readers another view and more information.
My comments weren’t meant to “silence or exile those who disagree” with me. I thought I was addressing their posts in a polite manner. Maybe the way I did it sounded a bit high-handed so if either of the two individuals whose posts I addressed are unhappy with what I said, I will happily apologise to them and have a go at phrasing my comments more positively. But I was not attempting to be rude or act like a smartarse.
Motog, given your stated political position, I shouldn’t have to point out to you John Howards poor showing in the polls prior to the use of fear tactics in the Tampa incident before the last election. As you know, it only takes one issue to turn public opinion. Your comments would appear to be somewhat biased in light of this.
Your reasons for not attending the rally, along with your opinions as to where I should post do not even warrant a comment.