Did anyone go on an Anti-War protest this weekend and how can I find out when the next ones will be?

[Tinker]

Hope someone can help. In the spirit of protest for protest's sake and to give this govt a give kick out of complacency, am keen to go on an anti-war march/protest. Same attitude makes me in favour on the firefighter's dispute. However, was most dismayed to discover there had been an anti-war protest in Liverpool this weekend that I hadn't heard about beforehand. So, anyone, where/how did you hear about one? I didn't notice anything in papers last week - but could have just missed something obvious! Thanks

If you go to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade website, you will find lots of factual information which I found really interesting
www.caat.org.uk/information/issues/iraq.php It may be after reading this that you see why so many of us are so cynical that anything real will change after Iraq has been bombed, apart from the fact that the civilians will find all their water, power, crops and infrastructure have been destroyed.

Sorry, hanged. I've looked up her name. It was Amal al-Mudarris.

Cityfreak, that website clearly has its own agenda. How many Iraqi's marched on Saturday? The UK is home to almost more Iraqi's than any other non-Arab countries.

And why would Iraq be any different than Afghanistan where obviously many hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested in rebuilding infrastructure?

Croppy, I don't know whether you bothered to look at the report, but it lists human rights atrocities which SH was doing in the full knowledge of UK and US at a time when they were happily selling him arms. That is what makes us cynical. Anyway, I can see that this is turning into a rival mumsnet debate of GF proportions. Can we agree to differ? I never post on those mothers' threads who love GF. Can I suggest that you start a separate thread for those mothers who are pro-war?

Actually I'm not pro-war and I did read the report. But fine, I will disappear then.

thanks for the link Marina have sent off emails to my MP & Blair.

There's an interesting perspective on the demonstration at Salon . I really have no idea about Blair, but could be willing to believe he's pro-invasion because of human rights issues (and opportunity). The thing is, I don't believe that about Bush. Is there a plan for replacing the regime? I do have to say that if there is a war, I'm glad that the UK will be in it with us. If the best happens and Saddam is deposed, I hate to think of the US feeling like we have sole say in what happens next. Truthfully, I'm still not for the war, but there are some pro-war arguments that are extremely powerful. What about the UN? Why don't they see fit to do anything about Saddam?

No questions were meant as a wind up-- these are things I'm asking myself. I feel I need to do a bit more research.. but am leaving on holiday tomorrow, so must pack! Croppy, don't go. Was it your husband that worked for Doctors Without Borders (the French word version..)?

cityfreak we are not pro-war. That's the point I'm making...

There will not be a war if Saddam corporates.

Saddam will coorporate if we stand up to him.

Quite simple really.

I'm sure thousands marched against a war with Hitler. Pity only hindsight will prove Bush et co. right.

Croppy, please don't disappear! I think it's important to hear other views on this. Cityfreak, I do agree that this could turn into another bitter mumsnet debate, but I disagree that anyone who questions the anti-war campaign should be dismissed as "pro-war" and effectively told not to air their views here.
It is an extremely emotive issue, and I hesitated about posting here, fearing antagonism. War is always appalling and causes untold suffering but I don't believe that means it's always wrong to go to war - it wasn't wrong in 1939 for example, when virtually everyone except Churchill thought Britain should continue trying to negotiate with Hitler.
There's an interesting (whether you agree with it or not) article by Nick Cohen in yesterday's Observer suggesting that the anti-war coalition is a massive threat to Iraq's chances of democracy. Has anyone else (pro-or anti-) read it? I have no time for Bush either, but like Croppy and Lil, I am in the minority of being inclined to trust Blair on this.
Please please let's agree to disagree on this, without it turning nasty!

heard a bit of a piece on Radio 4 this morning about the anti-Saddam Hussein guys in northern Iraq being in favour of military action. I'm not in favour but it does make you think..

I don't think anybody in their right mind is really in favour of war are they? Unfortunately there are times when it may be necessary, and I am not saying whether or not I think this is the time........ Slip, oops, ouch (that is me climbing gracefully off my soapbox)

I was a bit taken aback as PhilippaT and I amongst others have had perfectly civilised discussions on this in the past without it turning nasty (I don't do personal). I too heard the Kurds on Radio4 this morning proclaiming their support.

Yes I think action will be taken against North Korea if they continue with their threats to their west. As for the rest, few are on the scale of Saddam's brutal dictatorship which indulges in mass torture and murder. But also, I think the potential threat to world peace IS potentially a valid reason to take action. To me Saddam does represent a meaningful threat in this regard, unlike China, Burma and Belarus.

There was a real and widepsread movement anti a war with Hitler, particularly among the upper classes.

Of course I'm not "pro war" but it worries me that the Iraq people have no voice.

Also meant to say that as I understand it, arms sales by the UK (by publicly listed companies) took place under the Tories. I don't think it could have happened under Labour's ethical trade and foreign policies so I'm not sure that Tony Blair can be held responsible.

As I said, I very much doubt that weapons sales to Iraq would happen under Labour's current policy. I'm sorry but I don't see the connection between the other countries you cite. They are not military dictatorships whose leader is stockpiling chemical and biological weapons and whose leader is responsible for the deaths of up to a million of their own people. As I understand it, Yugoslavia is the biggest supplier of arms to Iraq in recent years.

I meant that few regimes in the world have EVER measured up to Saddam's tyranny. I have just now read through all the Amnesty International summary reports on the countries you named, and can't see any that measure up quite to what has gone on in Iraq.

I want something to be done because I think Saddam is a dangerous and cruel dictator who IS a threat to world peace and is torturing his own people. I just hope it doesn't have to be war.

And in terms of breaking the rules on trading with Iraq the largest number of ofences goes to Germany. They have breached the sanctions over 500 times. And it is not to ship in humanitarian supplies either. They have been involved in setting up the Iraqi military's fiber optic communications network. And regarding the funding that Saddam has had from the US and UK, all of that is true, but please remember that he has also been supported by France (the Iraqi AF flys mirage jets), China, and Russia. In the late 1980s the Russians set up the water defenses of Basra whoch was a multi million pound project. I am not saying that we are clean, we are not. But this issuue is far more complex than it is being painted by the media.

Not surprisingly I still don't agree with Lil & croppy! But then I am so anti-war I find it very very hard to justify ever making the first strike (I personally think the jury is still out on whether we actually did more good than bad in Afganistan and I think WWII could have ended considerably earlier with far less loss of life, including the 2 nuclear bombs on Japan, if the UK and US had been more compassionate).

I do agree with JJ that we really shouldn't rush in headlong without a plan for how to manage the country afterwards. There was at least some effort to do this with Afganistan. And to be honest, that's what both the UK and the UN do best - peacekeeping not war (well, Rwanda and their 5,500 troups possibly an exception...).

But I really wanted to join this conversation to say something about SH dropping chemical weapons on the kurds (actually not his own people, simply those living in his country but that's a bit beside the point). He's certainly not the only person ever to have done this - in the 1920s Churchill ordered bombing of the kurds. He actually wanted to use chemical weapons on them but they hadn't found a way to drop them from planes without harming the pilots at that point. Here's an extract from his notes:
'On the other hand, in the last war (WWI of course) bombing of open cities was regarded as forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of
course. It is simply a question of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for women.'

PhilippaT as usual, you make some very fair points. But at what stage do we stop looking at the past in terms of justifying or not justifying present actions?. Like most countries, Britain has some shameful episodes in its past but I'm not sure that because these happened many years ago, that they can be used as some sort of justification for decision making today.

Yes, Coppy I agree. The essential difference is that Churchill's words were shameful and disgraceful, but he is not PM now. SH gassed his own people, he is still in power and Hans Blix is worried that he has Anthrax and missiles that exceed the permitted range. Awful as our past is, it is not comparable with the present in Iraq.

You are absolutely right - I find Mugabe's constant harping on about what Britain should have done 30 years ago in Zimbabwe quite shameful so I shouldn't use it as my own excuse - however I really don't think SH is the only dictator prepared to or able to kill his own people - both Zimbabwe and North Korea are excellent examples at the moment (there's a fantastic quote I can't find at the minute about Kim Jong saying he doesn't mind if half the country dies of starvation as you only need 5 million for an army).

I am basically disappointed that Blair is so hawk-ish. I expect it of Bush and his arms-dealing colleagues (host of CNN's Crossfire at the weekend actually said Let's beat up the French!), but I did hope Blair would be more balanced (I was very impressed by the recent empassioned outburst in English by Joschka Fischer who said he couldn't convince the german people of the evidence because he wasn't convinced himself).

I fear Blair sees this as his last term in office (because he's likely to step down at some point so Cherie can get her place in the law lords and Gordon can get his end of the deal) and he wants his Churchill-ian place in history. In the 30s Churchill was considered a warmongerer, but he took the risk Chamberlain didn't want to and successfully led the country through a dreadful war. Blair knows that history shows us that our most respected and popular leaders are those who were on the winning side through war. Which I think is a pretty sad reflection of our society.

Oh and the missiles that extend the permitted range do so by 14 miles. And were declared as such. That's a really poor argument for war, surely?

I do find the US attitude to the French bizarre over Iraq. They are making all sorts of incredibly rude and disparaging remarks about them along the lines of who needs them anyway and yet at the same time seem to be getting extraordinarily upset at their lack of commitment to getting involved. Why does it bother them so much if they are so unimportant?. Whatever my views might be, I fully respect the right of other governments to make their own minds up.

I agree Croppy, I remember on the previous thread I think Lil said the trouble was these leaders are all men - sometimes I really do think I'm witnessing little boys in the playground. I can cope with them making decisions I don't agree with but I'd like to think they're grown-up and intelligent enough to be trusted to make those decisions!

Must do some work! Must not get drawn into political discussions on mumsnet again!