On the other hand.....

by Ray Tue Mar 04, 2003 10:56

Not because of the content, but because you cut-and-pasted someone else's work on here, instead of writing something yourself.
But to answer the article - 'rent-a-mobs' like us were protesting against Saddam Hussein's human rights violations back when he was a US ally. We protested against his chemical attacks on Iraqi civilians while Donald Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand. We protested about his attacks on Iraqi Kurds when Thatcher was underwriting arms exports to Iraq. We're not the ones who only pay attention to Iraq when it suits us.
As for alternatives, here's a bunch of interviews the Guardian did on that very subject
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,903942,00.html

by Seanin Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:19

Ray,
You're rewriting history. You're giving a list of the things you wish you had been protesting about. Wars are going on all over Africa and no one gives a toss about them.

It's your hatred of America that gets you out on the streets. The hypocrisy of it all is sickening.
Anyway, we'll get our war and the right thing to do will be done, so it doesn't matter. I know there's no point in arguing with people who are looking for enemies.

by Ray Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:36

Back in the 80's, a group of Labour MP's put down a private members motion calling for the end of arms sales to Iraq, because of his practice of killing his own civilians. The motion was voted down by the Conservative government, who weren't going to leave their mate Saddam in the lurch. Interestingly, not one member of the current Labour frontbench - the people who are now getting so worked up about that evil Mr Hussein - could be bothered signing that motion. Their concern for human rights violations in Iraq is a recent invention.

As for hating America, that's just idiotic nonsense. I have cousins in America. I have friends in America. Many of my favourite authors, directors, and bands are American. Do I hate them too?

I don't hate America. Like many millions of American people, I oppose the actions of the US government. There's a big difference.

by Seanin Tue Mar 04, 2003 13:20

Now you know I said "America" and not "Americans". Shame on you using that old chestnut. As for the Tories, well.... I'm not defending them.
I just wanted people here to stop yet again and examine their motives. I want this American action to depose Saddam and liberate the Iraqi people (inasmuch as a polis composed of tribes coresponds with our idea of a nation).
If I was in Iraq right now my heart would sink at the prospect of another 10-15 years of this regime, all because some well fed westerners took it upon themselves to march on my behalf.
Have people really thought this through?

by Ray Tue Mar 04, 2003 13:24

If you don't mean the American people, what do you mean? The Rockies? You think I have some problem with the Mississipi?
I disagree with the actions of the US government. There is a big difference between that and 'hating America'.

And yes, people have really thought this through. And most people in Ireland (and the rest of the world), and a sizable minority of Americans, think that its a bad idea. Thousands of Iraqi civilians will die during the war and in its aftermath. Going to war requires a damn good reason, and Bush hasn't provided one.

by anti-american Tue Mar 04, 2003 13:41

Why dont you go down there and fight yourself then,seanin?But ofcourse,OTHERS have to do the fighting and dying for you..... and then you can sit infront of a computer in your comftorable little home and feel moral and just.Armchair patriots are the worst kind...put some fucking action behind your big words Seanin!?!

by ExPat Tue Mar 04, 2003 13:47

Pre Iraq's invasion of Kuait sadly there was no interest in Iraqi people in Ireland (except as a destination for beef). No demos, no candle lit vigles, nobody cared. Me included I'll admit.

It was only when it became apparent that the U.S were going to get involved in a war with Iraq that suddenly people were interested. I guess being anti-U.S is better for recruitment then being anti-Saddam.

by Ray Tue Mar 04, 2003 13:55

There was Irish interest, as you point out - as a destination for beef. Regardless of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against his own people, the imprisoning of dissidents, the attacks on the Kurds, and so on - the Irish government was only too happy to supply Iraq with beef.
Brian Cowen was a TD at the time. Bertie Ahern was a government minister. John Bruton was head of the opposition. And yet none of these people, who are so convinced of the evils of Saddam today, ever lifted a finger back then. What does that tell you about their sincerity?

by ipsiphi Tue Mar 04, 2003 15:22

you are qouting G Lucas.

by Seanin Wed Mar 05, 2003 01:11

Beef doesn't kill people.....

by seedot Wed Mar 05, 2003 14:22

Or at least rotten intervention beef kills. Read the beef tribunal description of what was shipped to Iraq - not only did we trade, we ripped them off and ignored their religion.

"Anyway, we'll get our war and the right thing to do will be done, so it doesn't matter. I know there's no point in arguing with people who are looking for enemies."

Aaah - the people saying we should explore peaceful means, the people who empathise with the suffering about to be inflicted on the Iraqi population - these are the people who are looking for enemies.

While those who are looking forward to 'our war', who will be supporting the bombing and killing, who look for regime change in Iraq (and Iran if you saw Rumsfeld last night - stage 2 is being prepped) these people are on a mission to make friends with the world.

Finally: the Iraqi people need the freedom to protest, freedom to speak out against their regime with it's false elections, freedom to choose their allegiances. This will not be achieved by a group who are stamping on the right to protest, bringing in patriot act and neighbourhood spy rings and saying 'you're with us or against us'.

Seanin, if you were smart I'd think you're a plant. But actually, you're just an embarassment.

by Seanin Thu Mar 06, 2003 02:34

My wish is to see the Middle East entirely free of it's laothsome bunch of dictators, and I see the US reoval of Saddam as step one. Then perhaps the Saudi Royal family (unlikely). The problem is culture, Islam and sharia doesn't really fit in with democracy (thinking out loud here).

I really think you're statement that the US is repressive of free speech is stretching credibilty too far. I know we must be vigilant but things are reasonably healthy there in comparison with most other countries in the world.

In short, a reasonable person would not say what you just done said :-(

by seedot Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:37

I like a lot of things about the US.

I like the sense of federalism which sees laws being made at the level of the town (though I worked in a town that you couldn't buy a pint in as a result of this).

I like the clear belief in freedom of speech.

I really really like the food - not too keen on a lot of the cooking, but the range of food available is amazing.

But... I didn't make a statement about freedom of speech. I mentioned the right to protest - read about Feb 15th in New York and tell me there is a clear right to protest in the US. I mentioned the patriot act and the development of a police state in the war against terrorism - read about the green party members refused access to planes or the (sssh lets all forget about them) disappeared who are in Guantanamo bay.

Free speech isn't much use, when exercising this right gets you categorised as subversive, restricts your travel and other rights. And we read that yesterday the attorney general has decided to go after Jon Johannsen again, the norwegian kid (he was 15 at the time) who decided he wanted to watch a dvd on his linux PC. So speech is free - unless it's already been sold to someone else.

But politics, resistance, opposition - that's whats controlled.

by Seanin Thu Mar 06, 2003 11:04

There's nothing there. Is that all you could come up with?

by seedot Thu Mar 06, 2003 11:10

I bow before you ;-)