I find it very odd that while millions of protesters find it easy to protest the US in this crisis, NO ONE is protesting against Saddam Hussein and Iraq blaming them for this mess today?

Iraq today is gloating over the fact that they are winning the propaganda war with these large anti-war movement.

I find it very distasteful that Saddam and his cronies are actually winning period.

While I don't believe a lot of things the US govt says, I sure DON'T believe a single word that Saddam or Iraq says period! Their tightly controlled media and mouthpieces are a joke.

Saddam's re-election by popular vote of 100% is such garbage. Saddam's decree banning WMD this weekend is also pure BS. How can anyone take that decree seriously.

I also find it very disturbing that European peace activists are actually going to Iraq to serve as Human shields....what idiots! Don't they know what kind of person Saddam is?

Anyone else know why there aren't any anti-Saddam protests?

It's a case of protesting against the evil you think you know over the evil you know you don't.

"Anti-war" does not mean "pro-Saddam."

He has a point though, i don't recall any protests when iraq invaded kuwait, there only seem to be protests when the US is involved. Typical.....

This is just the way society is today - you don't get mass-protest in favour of war.

I think that ended after WW1.

I can only speak about the UK. When Iraq invaded Kuwait there was overwhelming support amongst the British people for action against them. So there was no reason to protest.

This time 91% of Britons oppose unilateral action against Iraq without a UN mandate. Tony Blair is heading to war without the support of the people and without the support of his own party. He is taking a huge political gamble. The only thing that can save him is war against Iraq, with Iraq using their WoMD.

That's why 2 million people took to the streets of London in the largest political demonstration ever seen in this country. And they weren't all lefties and peaceniks. They came from all walks of life, covered all political viewpoints and came from all age groups. Everyone is frustrated that Blair isn't listening to us.

The question I ask myself is will war against Iraq make me any safer and I have reached the conclusion that it won't. London will always be a target for terrorism.

As Yorick said, being anti-war against Iraq doesn't make me pro-Saddam. (It's a shame that we have to add this rider to every post). :(

Well said!

Actually I've posted the same here myself.

You're coming loud an clear, my friend! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark

Right, heres where it gets complicated...

The Stop the War coalition here in the UK is made up from many groups all opposed to the war - it organised the demonstration over here in cooperation with the Muslim Association of Britain and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I don't mind working with CND - but I have serious misgivings about involving the MAB, for precisely the reasons you have stated.

Lets get this straight first though, I don't oppose these people because they are Muslim - I oppose them because they are the British wing of the international organisation the "Muslim Brotherhood". Admittedly a slightly more presentable face of fundamentalism, but it still holds many of the undesirable characteristics. The Muslim Brotherhood, at least in other countries, has supported some pretty nasty movements and done some pretty nasty stuff. But as a rule the British left over here accept their involvment as the MAB presents itself not as a wing of a political islmamisist organisation but instead as simply a community pressure group - apolitcal. This is hard to swallow, considering their international pedigree.

But where it gets really disturbing is the more recent work the Brotherhood have done - most notably the Cairo declaration. Basically the Brotherhood organised a conference in Cairo, including the British SWP but more importantly the Iraqi foreign minister. This conference then passed a particularly belligerent motion proposed by said representative of Saddam Hussein's government. This was then passed by the Stop the War campaign back here in the UK at their national conference by a unanimous vote.

My problem here is that we aren't strong enough as a movement against either the Muslim Brotherhood or Saddam Hussein and his government. For a movement that is supposedly supporting the people of Iraq it seems to give a whole new level of respectability to their oppressors. The problem is that a large amount of people in the coalition just have a complete number blindness on this issue - they want to see huge numbers of people at the demonstrations and will abandon ideology to get them their. Involvment of the MAB is therefore vital to them, and particularly unpalatable to me and lots of other people who actually know who the hell this group really is internationally.

As I said earlier, this post is really only in reference to the British Stop the War movement. I do not think we are getting this right at the moment - we give tacit support to Hussein. A specific march against him? Well - just as you have misconstrued this march as being in favour of him as it is against the war surely some people would misconstrue being against Saddam as being in favour of war. I would rather have a demonstration in favour of the Iraqi people - against war on them and against Saddam oppressing them. If you think that war is the only answer to Saddam then I think you miss the point of democracy - you can't impose it from the top down. Action has to come from the people to get rid of him, so we need solidarity with those people - we don't want to bomb the living bejeezus (I love that word... :D ) out of them in order to help them.

So, no to war, no to Saddam. A message that I agree is being lost at present under the pressure to get people on the streets.

I find it curious that you refer to the mass worldwide movement pro-peace as "protesting the US", since a lot of people have been protesting themselves then - for many US people did manifest.

If a man is convinced of murder - then he has a right to a fair trial. Only when he is convicted by trial will he be sentenced. That is justice.
But you won't going bombing his town - and say what the heck with the innocent people around. And you won't shoot him before he has been convicted by trial. The first would be barbary, the second would be revenge.

I see no reason why the same logic would not apply here.

Those protesting against Saddam and Iraq, from Iraq wind up dead or in prison..so where are they? Six foot under or doing time!

Hmmm I really didn't equate "anti-war" protesters with being pro saddam in my original post except for those going to Baghdad to serve as human shields.

I'm anti war also but all I'm seeing are anti war protesters essentially turning into basically anti-US rallies with Bush effigies are torched or hanged on TV.

I'm just curious that while that is going on, there are no effigies of Saddam being burned or hanged or the Iraqi flagged being torched either.

I mean isn't he part of the problem too?

[ 02-17-2003, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

<font color=orange>Don't forget that even though there were possibly a million who turned out for the peace marches this weekend, it still represents less than 1% of our total population. Most, if not all polls here in the US show a large amount of Americans are for action against Iraq.

I'm all in favor of hauling Saddam's candya#$ into a court of law; even the War Crimes Tribunial at the Hague. We have proposed a way to do this, providing he is captured. We have set that plan in motion. We are there. We are ready!
It seems though, some governments, don't like our plan. So, just for grins, how do you all propose to go about getting him there? </font>

Moraine - I certainly agree with you in principle, but it really doesn't apply at a govt level. Saddam is not going to let anyone peacefully come into Iraq and arrest him.

Any head of state with complete control of an army is far more dangerous than an ordinary civilian. You just can't go in there and arrest the head of state without first taking out his army or at least neutralising it.

I mean you couldn't have negotiated with Hitler. He was willing to go down in a blaze of glory taking all of Germany and its population with him. The Army fought for him til he killed himself.

Unfortunately, there are still a few leaders in this world that only understand use of force. You don't have to look very far at all the regional wars being fought in Africa right now to see examples.

Yes, unfortunately, innocent civilians always die in war. That certainly hasn't changed since Man walked on this Earth and it's never going to change.

[ 02-17-2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Wutang ]

"Don't forget that even though there were possibly a million who turned out for the peace marches this weekend, it still represents less than 1% of our total population. Most, if not all polls here in the US show a large amount of Americans are for action against Iraq" (Sir Taliesan)

This weekend in Kansas City (the nearest metro here) there were two protests: one for the war and one against war, period. Both were relatively peaceful and both had very good points to make.

***rant mode***

I am no warmonger (nor pacifist), I question the *real* reasons for the US to all the sudden decide we're going after Hussein (make no mistake, it's not Iraq--it's the man who rules we're targeting), and I fear the outcome to not be as beneficial to anyone as our gov't would have us believe. Having said that, I am ready to whup some serious Saddam ass, on principle if for no other reason. My gasoline prices have already skyrocketed in the past two weeks because the gas companies (or the middlemen) see a profit to be made if they hold back some of their stock. My neighbors have begun stockpiling supplies and since we live so close to an important air base, folks are a little nervous, period. And all this in the middle of the US, in the middle of no-where.

I discovered last night my baby (and only) brother has been told officially he was to 'go home and wait for the phone call' after 13 yrs in the reserves. Needless to say, my father is devastated and my sisters aren't doing so well either even tho one of them was a Marine in Desert Storm (you know, been there, done that) and I was in the USN during the Beirut mess supporting the Marines there. This is different somehow and our elected officials are not paying the general populace a lick of attention. Bush is too busy playing at Cowboys and Indians to take care of his own people...and I'm afraid this may be a large part of the general negative feeling towards his little war hoopla. Am I trivializing? Nope.

Would I protest against this war? Not per se...I would protest the reasoning behind it---it is being touted as altogether too urgent for my liking. Would I protest *for* this war? No, although I would speak loudly and long for us to at least give our servicemembers the support they need to be able to do their jobs!!! Somehow in all the rush to complain and moan about injustice, we tend to forget the very people who make it possible for us to have the freedoms to protest!

***rant mode deactivated***

see, I was quick about it

[ 02-17-2003, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Garnet FalconDance ]

I feel the same as you Moiraine, but whenever I mention it someone demands that I have to explain how we catch Saddam without a big war. Sadly, I do not have an answer. :(

I've have decided to stop mentioning it.

Mark

Mark, it's not that we wanted you to stop mentioning it, but if there "has to be a better answer", most would love to hear what that anwer is. The truth is that there is no other viable answer, so your question was rhetorical. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The Iraq issue needs to be resolved soon if nothing else but to get US forces out Saudi Arabia which are there only because of watching Iraq.

The terrorists attacks against the US in 9/11 were precisely because of US forces in Saudi Arabia.

At least if we leave Saudi Arabia, it'll give less incentive for osama bin laden and his cronies persuade other militants to join their cause.

Course any occupation of Iraq poses other problems too.

Course I feel that with all the anti Americanism brewing in the Middle East, the US will be attacked regardless of what we do.

And thus equated people going to the extremes to prevent war with people favouring Saddam. Two different things.

People against the death penalty are not pro-murder. Even if they use themself as a human shield to prevent the murderer being executed.

Yorick - True, but I just think human shields just sends the wrong signal to the Iraq regime. Iraq govt believes that all the protesters support Iraq which is not the case as you say.

But do you think that the people serving as human shields are going to say anything bad about the Iraqi regime while they are there in Baghdad? Probably not I guess since Iraq doesn't tolerate opposition. Most likely the Iraqi govt will be housing and feeding them as well.

Hence what I see as mutual support.