Guest WillsbridgeRed Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 If so, please tell me the whole point of the demo? Was there any minute silence or mark of respect to those that died in Turkey? Why should the people of Iraq be denied free speech (Although yes it looks like the wepons of mass destruction never existed) How would you solve the problem of terrorism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalky Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 I saw a bit of it on the news. Totally against it, what good is it going to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirscrumpton Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Before I start my reply to this message I would like to point out that the views expressed in this reply are mine only and that I didn't go on the march. The point of the march (as far as I can see) was two fold. Firstly to protest against the war that took place (and too some extent is ongoing) in Iraq. Secondly to protest against President Bush’s state visit to this country. Was there a minute’s silence to express sorrow about the unfortunate loss of life in Istanbul yesterday? Well like I said I wasn't there but I imagine there wasn't. The march stretched for many miles (it took 3 hours for the marchers to file past Downing Street) and to organise a minute silence over a distance like that would be difficult. Don't forget that the bomb blast went off yesterday and so organising and informing all the marchers of a minute’s silence would have been very difficult. On a personal note I don't feel that the march was this-repesctful to those who died. Remember that this is a democracy and as the march was peaceful (as far as I’m aware) they had every right to voice their displeasure of what has gone on. The workings of democracy should not being allowed to stop regardless of terrorist actions. If it does then who are we to educate the rest of the world in the advantages of democracy if we can not enjoy such advantages ourselves. The march itself was not against the people of Iraq being allowed free speech, I understand it was about the motivation of the war. If the motivation to go to war was to liberate the Iraqi people against an evil dictator then I have no problem with that. If that is the case then why are Britain and the United States not marching straight into Kuwait to rid the Kuwaiti people of the un-elected leaders who profess to speak for them despite free elections? Why do they not march into Pakistan to overthrow the un-elected military general Musharaf who seized power in a bloodless coup? Why do they not march into Saudi Arabia and overthrow the un elected sheikhs? (sp?) Ok well maybe the war was about human rights and I have no problem with that. If that is the case then why are we not marching into China? Why are we not marching into Indonesia or Russia? Well maybe it was about weapons of mass destruction; again I would have no problem with. Well they haven't found any yet. But hang on both Iran and North Korea are known to be developing nuclear weapons programmes. Why are we not marching there and overthrowing these evil people who threaten our very existence. Well maybe it was about violating international law? Well as much as the Americans use this one I can't help but think of the words pot, kettle and black. The Americans are in breach of many of them including the anti ballistic missile treaty signed by Bush snr. Israel a state which receives billions of US dollars is also infringing on countless UN resolutions yet we are not occupying them amongst countless others. The reasons I believe we went to war was for the oil that Iraq has vast reserves of and to create business for American/British businesses. The Bush administration has strong ties with the oil business whilst Donald Rumsfield has strong links to the defence industry. Remember that it costs millions of dollars to fund presidential, congressional and house elections. Businesses do not lobby and fund politicians out of kindness they do it to get something in return. I don't think that yesterdays march made any impact on the policy that Britain and America are following, but those who took part clearly believed that they would. You can call them deluded if you like and maybe some of them are but at least their motives are pure which is more than I can say for the President of the United States and his loyal lap dog Tony Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spud55 Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 If so, please tell me the whole point of the demo? Was there any minute silence or mark of respect to those that died in Turkey? Why should the people of Iraq be denied free speech (Although yes it looks like the wepons of mass destruction never existed) How would you solve the problem of terrorism? No i didn't go as i don't see the point, i never supported the war, because the reasons for going that were given out were so obviously false it was untrue, the reasons they went were because of the oil and the fact that the Us forces failed miserably to get OBL, even though British forces had him cornered at least once and knew where he was, yet the Us blazed in and he slipped away. They needed to direct their anger at something, saddam was that. a distraction from the real problem. But i fully support the Gb armed forces that are out there doing their job and would not march against a war that they are far more involved in than we ever will be. Deal with Terrorism, it can't be done, but a good step would be to stop blowing them up, the US with this war on terror, have created far, far more terrorists than it has got rid of so far. And thanks to the US they are turning their attention to Brittish targets. other points, why don't we roll into Korea ? Well the fact that they have the second biggest standing army in the world, is a deterrant, and also they will never do anything naughty as they know China will destroy them if they do, Norht Korea is not able to do anything agains Us or the US for fear mainly of China being right on their doorstep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfc seattle Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 I would have gone if I was in the country... alas I was not and I would hasten to say that Bush is probably more popular there (UK) than certainly in my city (seattle) and probably my state (Washington). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spike Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 I would have gone if I was in the country... alas I was not and I would hasten to say that Bush is probably more popular there (UK) than certainly in my city (seattle) and probably my state (Washington). not in the slightest.... I havent ever hated an American President untill Bush got power. I like Clinton more than Bush. To be honest I dont like Tony Blair either, stupid git just kisses Bush's ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted November 22, 2003 Report Share Posted November 22, 2003 Was it something to do with them not wanting a murderer in the country? I'm sure thats what some woman said on the news. HELLO!! There are plenty of murderers in this country as it is, and they've actually killed with their bare hands. Some are even walking the streets. Pointless if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Bells left foot Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 if anyone did go then i would like to thank you for making me late for a gig :sport5: :sport5: :sport5: :sport5: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Percy Parrot Posted November 27, 2003 Report Share Posted November 27, 2003 If so, please tell me the whole point of the demo? Was there any minute silence or mark of respect to those that died in Turkey? Why should the people of Iraq be denied free speech (Although yes it looks like the wepons of mass destruction never existed) How would you solve the problem of terrorism? "If so, please tell me the whole point of the demo?" [Pete]- I will paste what I wrote on the polls forum a few days back below. "Was there any minute silence or mark of respect to those that died in Turkey?" [Percy]- yes. Despite the Sun criticising the failure of it ther WAS one. "Why should the people of Iraq be denied free speech (Although yes it looks like the wepons of mass destruction never existed)" [Percy]- they shouldn't! No-one ever said Sadam was a nice man. I'm sure everyone agrees that free speech is a good thing...so let people march against Bush. "How would you solve the problem of terrorism?" [Pete]- by talking. By compromising. By listening to their concerns. I am a history student and I can promise you that looking back at history there is one thing it CAN teach you- that "tough stances" do NOT work. So many conflicts could have been avoided. In the case of Palestine- perhaps simply forcing Palestinian's from land they have lived on for thousands of years isn't a great idea. Then having a war to take further territories...then the USA arming Israel with a nuclear warhead...and then building settlements and a wall INSIDE Palestinian territories on land that EVEN the US says is not Isreal's. Ask yourself one thing- why are these suicide bombers bombing? THEY FEEL ANGERED, UPSET, AGGRIEVED. THEY DO NOT BLOW THEMSELVES UP FOR FUN!!! If you believe they are just "a bit mental" then I SERIOUSLY suggest you consider how racist/ethnocentric you are. At the end of the day is suicide bombers are prepared to kill themselves for a cause they aren't going to worry about a war are they? Has terrorism worsened or improved under the likes of Sharon and Bush? Worsened! now I will paste my arguments about Bush's visit below ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. The visit is costing £5m MINIMUM, which we are paying for. That money could have been better spent on other things. 2. Is the state visit needed? It's mostly pomp and circumstance and no policy will be made or changed by a visit that couldn't be done over a phone or video link. 3. The visit was planned pre- Iraq and a queen's own has been quoted as saying it was (I will paraphrase) 'with the intention of being the first step of Bush's re-election campaign'. Why should be allow ourselves to be used as one party's political tool for a different country? 4. Bush's record on the environment is shocking- notably his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. Despite being the biggest producer of CO2 in total AND per head and despite being the richest country in the world (thus able to do something about it) AND despite origninally agreeing to it, the USA backed out. Ommissions of CO2 have increased 16% above 1990 levels. 5. Would we support the visit of a dictator? Would we want him to be put up at Buckingham Palace and greeted by royalty etc? well dictator maybe not, arguable worse. Hussein MAY not have won a fair election in Iraq- but we KNOW that Bush wasn't wanted by most American people. Gore won more votes in 2000, DESPITE those dodgy ballot papers being dismissed and all those mysterious votes going to Pat Buchannan. 6. Further to this, Bush's election campaign give him a HUGE advantage over opponents. His re-election campaign has seen a totally unprecidented windfall of money from politcal doners- mostly from big business such as oil companies, who give money, arguably, in order for political favours. Whereas in Britain there are strict rules to stop such things, such as capping expendature in constiuencies, (again, there are certain ways around them) such rules are not in place in the US. Those that are have recently been flouted by Bush's queen's own friend, Tom DeLay, who has been diverting funds via a children's charity to sidestep it. I don't have figures off top of my head for how much Bush has already got for his new campaign is extraordinary. 7. On Iraq, and without getting into the issue too much, the STWC (Stop the War Coalition), believe (and it can't really be argued selfishly, ideologically misguided you may think, but not selfish) that Bush was totally wrong to get involved. Billions upon billions of £ and $ already spent on a war, hundreds of lives lost of both sides, continuing violence. Sadam was an evil dictator, and the STWC doesn't support him or his Anfal campaigns. But why Iraq? why not Saudi Arabia, Iran, Korea, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast etc etc? The US, in the first place, supported Sadam during the first Gulf War of 1980-88 with Iran, and indeed armed him. But what if now, the majority of people decide they WANT an Islamic state? what if the Kurds decide to now go for freedom, thus causing war in Turkey, Iran, Syria and Armenia!?! The occupation/liberation is getting bogged down and messy. It could be turning into a complete disaster. Another Vietnam? 8. Linked to above- riding roughshod over the UN. 9. In March 2002 Bush slapped on a 30% tariff on imported Steel, a tariff that the WTO (World Trade Organisation) declared illegal. 10. That such a state visit implies a support for the US and their foreign and environmental policy that is not, in fact, there among the British people. They believe they have the right to protest against him and let him know (and Blair) what they feel about him. flip side also is why have the visit? -is there any point? -is there any benefit to the UK from it? Some would argue that all visits between leaders are crucial in bonding, uniting and understanding people and their countries. But still- why a state visit? First since Woodrow Wilson in 1918! and do Blair and Bush really need to get closer!?! Surely more important would be visits to France, Germany...maybe even bothering to talk to Cuba!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.