Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Other subjects

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

152 replies

Tinker · 21/01/2003 17:40

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

OP posts:
RosieT · 18/02/2003 17:03

I'm not sure the Americans have sent all those troops over to the gulf (no one knows how many, but I think it's probably a huge number) just to say hello to Saddam. Like some of you, I think this oil thing is a bit of a red herring, but I hate the way Blair keeps on changing his reasons for threatening Irak ? first it was "weapons of mass destruction" (whatever that means), now they don't seem to have found any, he's now pushing the humanitarian angle. Sure it's a terrible regime that's making a lot of people suffer, but how about North Korea? How about Zimbabwe? How about Saudi Arabia? I feel that Bush has now got the bit between his teeth, and he's not going to give up until he gets a "result" for what happened in New York in September 2001.
And I'd also like to say that I don't think Bush, for all his rhetoric about democracy, was elected exactly "democratically".

ks · 18/02/2003 17:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

GeorginaA · 18/02/2003 19:19

I have to say I'm more of a doubter of the necessity of this war rather than completely in the anti-war camp, but I found this article interesting and thought I would share:

The Observer

Sunday January 26, 2003

I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush

by Terry Jones

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And
so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors
down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer
looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to
discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got
everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in
reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us
off one by one.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply
ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my
neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a
pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me,
while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.

Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me
to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush
has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever
I want!

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about
international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide
bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened
us.

That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll
teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable
way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really
nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain
I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing
Iraq.

Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and
'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved
it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead?
But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be
terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists,
being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he
can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some
moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would
be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are
dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd
ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.

My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President
of the United States. That shuts her up.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good
enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open
and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist
masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the
entire street to kingdom come.

It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my
policy will destroy only one street.

Rhubarb · 18/02/2003 19:31

Firstly, if the US had control over Palestine and Iran it would secure cheaper and shorter routes to Gulf ports for Caspian oil.

Secondly, if none of you want to go on a general strike or do a protest in Whitehall you don't have to, I was merely stating what I was prepared to do, which coincides with the Socialist viewpoint - I make no apologies for that.

Thirdly, there were an awful lot of Iraqis on that march at the weekend who do not want to see their country bombed. We all agree that Saddam's regime needs to be replaced, but this is not the way to go about it. Since when has war ever solved anything? Would you be happy if a country was threatening to bomb parts of London to oust your PM? We may not like what is happening in Iraq, but that does not give us the go ahead to charge in there, guns a'blazing. There are many more evil dictators in this world, many more atrocities being committed, you have to wonder why all this attention is being focused once more upon Iraq. Why would the US supply Iraq with weapons to take over Iran, and then when that bid fails and Iraq turns against the US, suddenly be so keen to bomb it? If the US and Britain want to know what weapons Iraq possesses, all they have to do is check their invoices! The atrocities Saddam was committing have been happening for years, even when the US and Britain were supplying weapons, yet no-one bothered to listen to the humanitiarians then when they pointed it out.

What I am sick of is this hypocrisy. Of supplying these countries with weapons, and then attacking them the moment they cease to be our allies. Of the rich throwing their weight around, attacking some of the poorest countries. No-one would want to be an Iraqi right now, but then I don't particularly want to be a Westerner right now either. Besides, give the Iraqi people a break, they are not as dumb as they are being made out to be.

ks · 18/02/2003 19:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

RosieT · 18/02/2003 20:01

Exactly, Rhubarb! Hypocrisy is exactly what it is!
(I'll join you on a general strike!)

Croppy · 19/02/2003 09:06

Palestine is nowhere near the Caspian sea. In any case Azerbaijan and Kazaksthan have the rights to that oil so still confused as to what the US would be trying to achieve ina ny event. ALso confused Rhubarb by your reference to the US sponsoring Iraq in 1994? This is post the Gulf war?.

As I understand it, the official line of the Kurds is that they support the war.

RosieT · 19/02/2003 09:55

We were marching behind a large, very organised Kurdish contingent on the march on Saturday all waving their yellow flags (fraid dh, rather un pc-ly kept calling them the lemon Kurds). So don't think they're in favour of military action.

Lil · 19/02/2003 10:17

Rhubarb, we're all sick of the general hypocrisy in politics. But you'll never get rid of it. And you have to look at each situation in turn without harping at what happened in the past, which dictator is worse and who supplied bombs to who in the last skirmish! Surely you have to decide if what is being proposed is the right solution right now in the current political setting.

I don't understand the call for a general strike - if you have a general strike it affects everyone in the UK. You are striking and hence denying us all services. Why do you want us all to suffer? how does that help your cause? It'll just create fun for the anarchists and p* off the rest of us!

..And no-one on this thread said the Iraqis are dumb.

RosieT · 19/02/2003 14:21

So where do we go from here? More than a million of us marched last Saturday, and all the government can say is, "sorry, folks, we still think we're right". There must be something else we can do to keep up the fight. Would it help if we all lobbied our local MPs?

Lucy123 · 19/02/2003 14:40

I don't think this is about oil. I think it's about the US trying to establish itself as the supreme world power, and the UK wanting to be best friends with the supreme world power.

Like everyone else says, if the war is about humanitarian issues, then there are many other countries that need dealing with. But really the point is that any war will create more humanitarian issues than it solves. They won't oust Saddam quickly and in the meantime he will turn his anger onto the Kurds and possibly Israel (like he did last time). Meanwhile other countries, especially Arab ones will see the US bombing Iraq for "humanitarian" reasons, while letting Israel, N Korea, China etc do what they like. It's just not worth the risk. It's also not worth the risk if Saddam turns out to have the weapons they say he has - because it will give him an excuse to use them.

However on the positive side, at least all those other countries will have seen that many British, American and other people are against what their governments are doing. Hopefully if nothing else that will reduce the numbers of disenchanted teenagers turning to terrorism.

Lucy123 · 19/02/2003 14:43

RosieT - I think we should all join the Labour party and start lobbying to replace Blair with someone less arrogant/ more sensible. British politics needs an injection of new, non-cynical blood.

Bozza · 19/02/2003 14:52

I very much agree with your first post Lucy123 - not sure about the second I definitely think it is about Bush flexing his muscles, trying to prove world dominance and make the UN obsolete (because without a UN we will need the USA as world policeman). Also agree that Blair has chosen Bush as the probable winner and so is backing the American horse rather than the European/UN.

I just hope that your last paragraph proves true - that would be a great positive outcome from the protests.

ks · 19/02/2003 16:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

RosieT · 19/02/2003 16:08

We just did the bit of the march between Blackfriars Bridge and Westminster, where ds fell over and bashed his nose ? by that time he'd had enough, it was bitterly cold, wasn't it. We were sandwiched between some very friendly anarchists with a huge black banner with letters made out of what looked like old duvet covers, and someone with a banner saying "Librarians say shhhhhhh to war". And a little way back from the aforementioned lemon Kurds. But it was a really good atmosphere, I thought. And I'm sure ds enjoyed it, too despite the bashed nose. As I was tucking him in to bed that night, he said "I think the war people must have heard us blowing our whistles". Aaaaah!

ks · 19/02/2003 16:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ks · 19/02/2003 16:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Rhubarb · 19/02/2003 23:13

The US funded Iraq in 1994 during Iraq's war with Iran, as the US desperately wanted control of Iran at that time.

Sorry to sound anti-American but....I think Bush is incredibly arrogant and bullish. Apparently his war general referred to France and Germany as the "Axis of Weasles" because of their blockage to arming the Turks (which is dangerous considering their relations with the Kurds). And now the US have threatened France with sanctions if they refuse to co-operate with their plans for war. Kind of reminds me of the playground bully!

I know we will never rid the world of hypocrisy, but we can still hope! All I am asking for is for our world leaders to be truthful, to stop supplying warring nations with arms, only to use military force against them years later when they cease to be allies, to stop trying to resolve everything with military might and to COMMUNICATE. Wouldn't it be nice if Bush and Blair met Saddam Hussein face-to-face to thrash out these issues instead of retreating behind their armies? As far as I know, only Tony Benn has had the courtesy to speak to SH directly. I think it should be compulsory for all nations to meet with their leaders, no matter how tyrant they are, before going to war against them. It's only polite!

musica · 19/02/2003 23:53

Rhubarb - nit-picking I know, 1984.

Lucy123 · 20/02/2003 07:51

Rhubarb I agree. What really annoys me is that the US actually holds the record on UN vetoes (followed by the UK) and has held it to ransom over several issues in the past, including the World Court. Yet when another country does it they go loopy....

Philippat · 20/02/2003 09:31

Likewise the US have withdrawn from the treaty on non-proliferation of biological weapons but expects everyone else to hold to it.

Rhubarb · 21/02/2003 15:25

Musica - thanks! I always knew I was number dyslexic!!

Cityfreak · 21/02/2003 16:11

If you are interested in finding out about the next one, there are suddenly loads of new local events for this weekend and next week on the stop the war website, at least there are for our region. I think it is exciting that people have been motivated to organize these all after last Saturday.

Rhubarb · 24/02/2003 14:20

All the MP's are going to the Commons on Wednesday to vote on whether or not they support Tony Blair's war policies. So if you have not already done so, please make your own views known to your local MP's now using this link . By law they are obliged to reply! (Apart from the PM himself apparently).

janh · 27/02/2003 11:48

I was sent this link today:

www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

It's clever!

Swipe left for the next trending thread