International Day of Action

felice · Post by **felice** » Thu Feb 13, 2003 8:40 am

So, is everyone attending their local protest againstthe imminent invasion of Iraq on Saturday?See http://unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=725to find out what's happening in your area.felice

Post by **Crash** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 1:27 pm

Well since no-one else is gonna be drawn into answering this then I will.I Would do, but I live up north and can't really be bothered to go. Hah! It's probably part of Blair's "Integrated Transport Policy" - Wreck all the roads, trains and buses so they don't have to deal with anyone who lives more than a hundred yards from London city centre if and when there's a riot.Either way Blair's bought his chips this time.

Post by **Crash** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:03 pm

Yeah, you tell 'em my man!

Shane · Post by **Shane** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:54 pm

Attacking a Country for it's assets is nothing new. When the natural resourses eventually run out, it will be interesting to see how many of the peace protesters children will be fighting other countries for their survival.I heard a saying some Americans are using: "Kick there ass. Take there gas!"Now my peace loving side tells me that attacking a persecuted Country is wrong, and it is moraly wrong. But you have to feel there is some double standards with the argument.I remember the fuel shortage a couple of years back that turned normaly peace loving citizens into violent thugs.I can't help thinking that it's all just a sign of the times.Shane.

felice · Post by **felice** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 9:00 pm

Quote (mike @ 16 Feb. 2003,14:49)Can anyone actually cite a good reason for the war? I'm sure there is but it's escaped my notice.Oh, lots of good reasons. If the US don't invade Iraq, they won't be able to destroy the eivdence that Iraq don't actually have any WMDs to speak of after all. And Iraq would be most useful as a permanent US base in the Middle East. The invasion is likely to cause widespread unrest in the Middle East, which would provide "justification" for more invasions, to "keep the peace" and "liberate the people" (well, those of them who survive the bombing and destruction of infrastructure, anyway). The war on terrorism is running out of steam, and Iraq is the most convenient replacement (as the song says, "if you cannot find Osama bomb Iraq"). And any war is a good thing, because it increases profits for the arms industry which helps fund Bush's election campaigns. And makes it easy to condemn any opposition to whatever Bush wants to do as unpatriotic, distracts from not having actually been elected, boosts popularity, etc. More importantly, the US economy is very dependent on the special status of the US dollar as the de facto international standard, which means that virtually every country keeps a big reserve of US dollars, in effect giving the US a whopping great interest free loan. Iraq switched to using the Euro instead of the dollar a couple of years ago, so invading it really is self defense. And of course, direct control of Iraq's oil would be a nice bonus.We had a great turnout at the protests over here - five or six thousand seems to be the most realistic estimate. That's ten times as many as the last major protest in December.

Post by **Crash** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 8:56 pm

If we all drove Volvos we wouldn't have this problem. Dual Fuel.

felice · Post by **felice** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:27 am

Quote (mike @ 17 Feb. 2003,22:47)I can see there may be a case if Sadaam is torturing Iraqi's who resist him etc, but unlawful torture happens in many countries and we don't take action against them.And the US has given no indication that it genuinely cares what Saddam does to his own people; it's just a useful propaganda point for them. Quote The most convincing reason seems to be that Iraq are still in breach of the UN treaty and so enforcement by invasion is justified.That could conceivably be a justification of a _UN_ invasion; it certainly doesn't justify the US acting against the UN's wishes.Quote I just can't see invasion as a priority.Just low priority, not morally wrong?Quote The one thing that really bugs me is that even if Iraq does have any WMD, if US defences were any good they could intercept any long range missile.Yes, Saddam poses no possible threat to anyone except potentially his immediate neighbours, and that can be effectively discouraged by the threat of overwhelming retaliation if necessary (no such threat was supplied before he invaded Kuwait).Quote (who voted Green at the last election)That's almost enough for me to forgive you voting against Makara