Questions for the Labour Party regarding their position on the war.

by Jim Fitzpatrick Fri Jan 31, 2003 16:49

I forgot to ask, Does the Labour Party support sanctions on Iraq? and do the Labour Party support resolution 1441 and weapon inspectors?

by Magneto Fri Jan 31, 2003 17:02

Why have you not initiated protests at British Forces installations in Northern Ireland?

Will you now call for protests at Royal Irish Regiment barracks?

by E - SWP Fri Jan 31, 2003 17:07

Have you?
Will you?

by Magneto - None Fri Jan 31, 2003 17:15

I will also extend it to Sinn fein.

Answer please?

by E - SWP Fri Jan 31, 2003 17:19

The question was not asked about your party, Labour, NOT SP/SWP/SF. Why don't YOU answer.

by em Fri Jan 31, 2003 17:27

are you all such mindless drones that you cant have a position outside your respective little clique? can you not accept that people whatever their silly little lable are against the war, and no matter how important your little meetings make you feel thats all that matters?

sometimes i'm reminded of the life of brian

REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah...

JUDITH: Splitters.

P.F.J.: Splitters...

FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.

P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...

REG: What?

LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.

REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!

LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.

REG: People's Front! C-huh.

FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

REG: He's over there.

P.F.J.: Splitter!

by Magneto - Not in Labour Fri Jan 31, 2003 17:27

I've asked this question of SWP and SP several times before. Why wont you answer it?

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Fri Jan 31, 2003 17:41 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Which is more important, stopping the war or sectarianism? If it is the former, then support from any party or any organisation, or any individual is welcome. If Labour want to oppose the war then they should be made welcome. I heard a bizarre comment at a meeting last week where a Labour party member was defending their anti-war stance and some-one pointed out that Labour had betrayed people on service charges, and attempted to make a connection on the ground of betrayl etc. I could have wept.

Is it the case that to be anti-war it is necessary to fill out an application form, checking off your ideological and political stances on a variety of issues and hand it in to be rated?

Are people who support tax cuts for the middle classes allowed oppose the war? Are people who voted for Bin Charges allowed oppose the war? Are people who support anti-Trade Union legislation allowed oppose the war? Are people who are capitalists allowed oppose the war?

Or is there a certain minimum amount of leftiness that you need before some self-appointed purer than pure ideological guru happily ensconed in some mad fantasy world that exists only in his head decides it is okay for you to oppose the war?

I'm in Sinn Fein, am i allowed oppose the war? Do I need to answer 20 questions on Das Kapital before I can go on a march? Am I allowed have a friend who is a member of Fianna Fail and also oppose the war?

The important point in building this coalition is, surely, getting the maximum amount of support from the widest spectrum of Irish social and political life. If a Fianna Fáil councillor who voted for the Bin Charges and thinks CE schemes are a waste came out against the war tomorrow I'd applaud him for doing so rather than criticise him for being a member of a party which has made war on the working class for the last five years.

There is one question, are you or are you not opposed to a war on Iraq? There is one answer, it is yes or no. If it is yes, then that person should be welcomed to the anti-war movement, given a placard, a map to Shannon and a pair of wire-cutters regardless of their opinions on other issues.

This is not a time for political point scoring or sectarianism. It is not a time for another glorious defeat suffered by ideological purists but a time to win.

by Justin watcher Fri Jan 31, 2003 17:48

Yes it is important to build the most broad anti war movement at the moment. But it is also important that we do not just bury our heads in the sand regarding our differences. The position of the labour party is important, they could well end up supporting the war if it has UN backing. It is of crucial importance that we debate the UN issue, critisisms of the GP and SF can also be raised on this score.

BTW
The previous sell outs of the Labour Party is relevent it might give an indication of what kind of party they are. Once bitten twice shy and all that.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Fri Jan 31, 2003 17:57 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

I take the point about Labour party betrayls but looking at the parties and organisations involved in the anti-war movement I have sacks full of political and personal differences with everyone involved and a grudge list that stretches off to infinity, one I look forward with ill-concealed relish to paying off some day ;)

The issue on the UN is a valid one, but right now there is no UN mandate for war and we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it. There's no point bitching at each other about something that might not happen, it's a distraction.

by Ray Fri Jan 31, 2003 17:58

Nobody is asking you to join the Labour party. You don't have to promise to give them a vote come the next election. You're still allowed criticise them over bin charges or whatever else.

But there's absolutely nothing to be gained by bringing this stuff up every time someone from the Labour Party has the audacity to say they're against the war. Actually, that's not quite true. The anti-war movement has nothing to gain from it. Petty sectarians like yourself obviously gain some minor boost to your self-esteem when you manage to demonstrate how no-one else is fit to join _your_ anti-war movement.

I was going to tell you to go read your Trotsky on 'united fronts', but actually I don't much care what you go read as long as you fuck off.

by Justin watcher Fri Jan 31, 2003 18:03

"...right now there is no UN mandate for war and we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it".

Justin, lets just pretend that the UN backed Bush's plans for war in Iraq this afternoon, what would your position be?

I am not being a sectarian, I welcome the involvment of the Labour Party in the IAWM but issues such as our attitude to the UN have to be raised. They are VERY important questions. There is no contradiction between building a united front and having honest debate. In the long run if you hide these issues you are building the movement on sand.

by Eugene - SWP Fri Jan 31, 2003 18:04

Hi everyone,

this is the first time I have given my first name over this newswire and I would like to state that the first 2 comments listed on this thread by "E-SWP" were and have not been added by me but by a imposer of some kind attempting some kind of shit stirring exercise.

I don't know who this person is but he/she certainly isn't me that’s for sure. Ignore the comments if you please.

I wont give my surname as enough people know me already,

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Fri Jan 31, 2003 18:16 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

The question isn't completely clear as to whether it's meant for me or the party. If the former, I'm opposed to a war on Iraq whether the UN supports it or not. For the latter, I would refer you to the fact we opposed the first Gulf War which has a UN security resolution backing it and it is my firm belief we would take exactly the same stance this time round.

On a note of idle curiosity, what's watching me like? I can't see it as particularly interesting and frankly it's making me a little nervous ;)

by iosaf - 5th Fri Jan 31, 2003 18:21 barcelona

we do enough shit stirring and tending to the fires of passionate social and political change without name robbing.

a tip for the 20th century crew.

we are alike to the borg.
we absorb every group who touch us.
We sat down and hypothesised every little turn along the way to our world. And nothing yet nor no-one has stopped us on our way.

choose do not be chosen.

Labour party people are always free to follow thier own conscience.
They are of course free to support any dfampaign they wish to.
Our work in the UK has seen many new labour people adjust the party representation of their hopes. After all they entered politics with hope. Blair did not kill that hope.-As long as there is hope we are there, ready to channel it with our wonderful evolving revolution.
The wee assembly of seven in Barcelona is laughing it´s freaky heads off this week.
It really is being "a most interesting" week.
Eugene i would be tempted to play with your name on the EU genetic theme. But I condemn using other people´s names. Names are very important.
Be careful of them.

by 'Justin' watcher Fri Jan 31, 2003 18:21

The question was aimed at SF. thanks for clarifying that. It's a bit off the point but what is SFs view of the UN? do you think that it is a representative of world opinion? Do you think it is an independent organisation?

I use the name 'watcher' when on indymedia, and I adopt the name of who ever I am debateing with, its sad I know but it's the way I do things!

by iosaf - 5th Fri Jan 31, 2003 18:21 barcelona

we do enough shit stirring and tending to the fires of passionate social and political change without name robbing.

a tip for the 20th century crew.

we are alike to the borg.
we absorb every group who touch us.
We sat down and hypothesised every little turn along the way to our world. And nothing yet nor no-one has stopped us on our way.

choose do not be chosen.

Labour party people are always free to follow thier own conscience.
They are of course free to support any dfampaign they wish to.
Our work in the UK has seen many new labour people adjust the party representation of their hopes. After all they entered politics with hope. Blair did not kill that hope.-As long as there is hope we are there, ready to channel it with our wonderful evolving revolution.
The wee assembly of seven in Barcelona is laughing it´s freaky heads off this week.
It really is being "a most interesting" week.
Eugene i would be tempted to play with your name on the EU genetic theme. But I condemn using other people´s names. Names are very important.
Be careful of them.

by iosaf Fri Jan 31, 2003 18:27

watcher? are you the one who asked how much Blair paid me to mole ireland.indymedia last year?
you called yourself "facist watcher" which i recall pointing out meant you were a fascist who watched. You attacked me
for my supposed shootdown comment on Adrian More´s speech by speech criticism of Cheney?
I wrote "rambly but interesting and asked the editors to put a link to the original article".
you got really upset and silly.
at me, at daithi, at gren party mike, you decided we were all one and the same.
pretending to be each other.
borg like.

it was very stupid but very determined, nice to see you´re still about, the stupid and the determined always serve a necessary function.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Fri Jan 31, 2003 18:31 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Hmm, foreign policy is not my area of expertise but after a swift glance at a Sinn Féin manifesto (Wherein can be found all the answers to life's difficult questions) I'll make a few points.

First of all there is the obvious difference between the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council and the power distribution and decision-making powers in each.

We would argue that the UN is a good idea, but that the implementation is wrong, that it is too dominated by the most powerful states, in other words those with veto power and that it is relatively powerless to enforce decisions that the US doesn't fully support. Also mostly powerless to run without funding and of course America can hold the thing to ransom on that issue. It would also be no harm to move the damn thing out of New York. We might even con the Yanks into thinking it's because it might be a target for a CIA trained Islamic terrorist group.

I don't see it as representative of world opinion but there doesn't seem to be an alternative other than the UN and as for its independence, how can we talk about something that doesn't exist? :)

by iosaf Watcher Fri Jan 31, 2003 18:36

Sorry Iosaf that wasn't me. Like all great names people rob them on ye.

by Des Fri Jan 31, 2003 21:10

As far as I am concerned, any organisation or person who is opposed to the planned aggression against the Iraqi people is welcome in the anti war campaign. However, I do not believe that to ask the question, what would the Labour attitude be if a second UN resolution which Blair is calling for was adopted, would they jump ship?
Given their record on other issues, it is a legitimate question to ask and is not at all sectarian.

by iosaf ?= o as if Fri Jan 31, 2003 21:28

thats why i think an encrypted name is best.
so it can´t be robbed. great. letters and numbers.
loads of the watchers eh?

by hunter - pfln Fri Jan 31, 2003 22:01

i hold in my hands the Labour Youth flyer I was given at the Dail demo on the 29th.

It states that the "conversion of by the FF/PD government of a civillian airport into a death port to support Bush's war effort is despicable" -true enough, but why were no Labour heckles raised when Shannon was being used by the US during the Afghan war? Were was the Labour Youth 'Fight Back' then?

No mention is made of thier Socialist International co-thinker Tony Blair and the British Labour Party's role in this drive to war. Why is this? - considering even British LP MPs are openly opposed to the war, some even opposed to war, new resolution or no new resolution.

Furthermore - "it is time that the death machines that pass through Shannon to fight against terror [sic?] are sent back home where they belong!" - this to me seems a bit confusing, are they saying send the planes home to the US to stay there and not be involved in any war? or do they mean that they just fight the war, just not using Irish airspace and facilities?

In the leaflet there is no mention of what their position as regards a new US resolution is/would be. This, in my opinion needs to be clarified.

I welcome anyone into the anti-war movement, but these points are important - to me anyway. And I'm not aiming for sectarian point scoring here, I just want clarification of the issues, especially the LP position on a new UN resolution.

by Shelta Sat Feb 01, 2003 00:17

These comments reveal an appallingly low level of political analysis. Perhaps these commentators should spend some time in a library before posting their ignorant drivel

by shifting sands Sat Feb 01, 2003 00:22

Of course you are correct Des. But debate and critical thinking is not exactly welcomed in many of the parties above. They will bootlick labour for a while now until labour sells them out again and then they will moan about labour. But it will be ok for them to criticise labour when it becomes the party line again. No wonder most people dont takeany heed of any of them.

by hunter - pfln Sat Feb 01, 2003 18:41

actually shelta -

a) as for libraries... well i actually have a degree in history and politics and as such spent about three years in libraries

b) i dont really believe that political analysis is gained through reading multitudes of books - i think its gained from that most vital of things - experience. and as the above posts have mentioned, thus far experience has proved that Labour are quite likely to jump-ship when it pleases them.

c)the problem with so called united fronts is that there will always be divisons over methods, tactics and ideologies. it is important that our differences are discussed. why? because,

hypothetical situtaion #1: A new UN resolution is passed allowing the use of military force in Iraq. Bush is laughing, he's got his result. Where then for the IAWM? will Labour and others who hold what i would term 'illusions' about the UN pull out of the IAWM? because their is UN 'legitimacy' to a mass slaughter for greed and power? If the answer is no they wont pull out - then thats great. But if the answer is yes they will pull out - then how can they call themselves 'anti-war'?

hypothetical situtaion #2: The IAWM and the grassrootsers force an end to military landings in Shannon and the use of our airspace - but bush goes to war without a new UN resolution. will labour pull out, or become less active in the IAWM because our 'neutrality' is no longer compromised?

d) shelta, if you are in the labour party, you have still not answered the questions posed.

To me, and by the looks of it, many others these questions are important *now* so we know what we are dealing with. Its not a case of crossing that bridge when we come to it, its a case of knowing who will be crossing the bridge with us. you mentioned poltical analysis - we have to analyse for the future as well as today. And i think its perfectly legitimate to raise these questions on indymedia cos lets face it, most of us are anti-war anyway and those who aren't are unlikely to be converted by arguments on the newswire.