message from Ciaron O'Reilly

by Phuq Hedd Mon Feb 10, 2003 17:22

It strikes me that the Peace Camp was acceptable to the authorities as long as its effect on USAF refuelling was token. If it succeeded in attracting enough people to disrupt refuelling then it was always going to be shut down. There are plenty of people who are going to say "yeah war is bad" and do nothing about it.
The peace camp was one part of the anti-war effort and a very good part. Other parts are T.Hourigan/J.Sheehan's reporting, the IAWM marches, the actions by CW and Mary Kelly.

As long as a protest of any sort is something that makes the governments position untenable then there's going to be heat. If the Feb 15th march were going to be an actual _threat_ to the government you wouldn't be allowed to do it.

Anyway, we obviously disagree and I'll probably spot you under the banner.

Phuq Hedd

by Des Sun Feb 09, 2003 21:50

Thank you for your grovelling apology Phuq Hedd, (joke), duly noted.
The peace camp provided a focus for the anti war campaign (at least in the Mid West region), the work put in by the participants at the camp was very much an asset to the campaign, their efforts were not a failure. The presence of the camp drew increased attention to the use of the airport by U.S. forces preparing for a resource war, even allowing for the “coverage” provided by our “free” media. The failure(s) resulted from the “direct action” activities which produced no positive results, a basic analysis of any action would be to simply ask, did the action result in increased support for the campaign in the region. The harsh reality is that those actions resulted in decreased support in the region and a very negative reaction from residents in Shannon AND AIRPORT WORKERS, in other words, the very people whose support was a prerequisite for the “blacking” of refuelling operations at the airport. Maybe I will bump into you on the 15th, I will be under the SP banner. LLCMUT (long live cdes. Marx und Trotsky).
Kronstadt
Des

by Phuq Hedd Sun Feb 09, 2003 20:02

reading over this exchange again I apologise unreservedly for questioning your motivations. It was pointless and obviously inaccurate and even if it had been correct it does nothing to prove that I am correct in evaluating tactics differently. That said, I think that you're still wrong about the effect of NVDA and to attack the Catholic Worker and Mary Kelly actions.

by Phuq Hedd Sat Feb 08, 2003 20:47

Now, either the Peace Camp drew that attention and turned into the media circus, or else the NVDA drew attention to Shannon and the Peace Camp.

So, in other words, you'd have been happy with a Peace Camp that set out to fail in it's main objective which was to "draw attention" to Shannon Warport.

The NVDAs have removed a part of the Warmachine and also drawn attention to Shannon.

Personally I don't believe that the time for "drawing attention" is still with us. It doesn't harm, but it's obviously not STOPPING ANYTHING.

By all means don't take NVDA if you don't want to, but don't condemn those that do when your thinking is so fuzzy.

by Des Fri Feb 07, 2003 19:52

I would strongly suggest that both of you get a grip; you are in serious danger of becoming detached from reality. The only result(s) of the “direct action” at Shannon was that the peace camp had to be dismantled. The reaction of people in the Mid West region, that I have spoken to (who are anti war) was negative in the extreme. Do either of you really believe that damaging one U.S. transport aircraft will have any effect on the U.S. ability to carry out an aggressive war against the Iraqi people? You must be aware of the vast resources available to Dubya.

Of course Phug Hedd, you are very much correct, I don’t want to stop the war, that is why I spend all my spare time on marches, leafleting, picketing (including the prison where the CWM members are being held) and attending meetings. Because I am a pro war supporter (in disguise) I will continue to do so. Marches will not stop the war, but stunts, aka “direct action” will not only not stop the war, they will assist the ruling elite in our country who support the forthcoming resource war, an elite who are only interested in PROFITS not LIVES.

by Chekov - WSM Fri Feb 07, 2003 14:16

Quote:
"the effect on the Bush/Blair war drive was NIL"

Actually these were the only actions carried out as part of the anti-war effort that have had a provable effect on the Bush/Blair war drive that was greater than NIL. A plane was taken out of commission for a period of time amounting to a definite, albeit miniscule in the grand scheme of things, effect on the war drive. There is no evidence that any of the other tactics of the anti-war movement have had an effect that was greater than NIL.

At this stage it is the duty of those people who are genuinely against the war to explain the necessity of such actions to the mass of the population who are against the war but who have a very naive understanding of how politics work and assume that if enough people ask a politician to change their policies, then they will do so.

What is counter productive is for people such as yourself to attack those people who have the bravery to actually do something while holding out for the never-never land of mass direct action once the movement is big enough, but until that far off day comes, that we should limit ourselves to polite pleas to the powerful.

The time for action is NOW - the government are on the defensive and we have a real chance of making a difference now. The direct actions to date have each been followed by a surge in numbers of people actively involved in the movement. The professional politicians are getting the willies, ordinary people are not and virtually every single ordinary person who I have talked to that is opposed to the war has no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the actions of MK and the CW5 even if they would never consider doing the same themselves.

So Des, quit making transparently false accusations about the productivity of these actions and get out there and explain to people why direct action is needed and why the government won't simply change their policy if enough people ask them politely. Or are you one of those professional politicians or their accolytes who see the anti-war movement as a chance to increase the profile of your sad little party and doesn't give a damn about actually stopping the war and Irish collaboration in it?

by Phuq Hedd Fri Feb 07, 2003 01:24

QUOTE:
their “action” at Shannon was a disaster for the anti war campaign in the Mid West region. It was simply futile, the effect on the Bush/Blair war drive was NIL,
ANSWER:why was it a disaster? They've kept the issue in the news and they further damaged a piece of the war machine. Wringing your hands ineffectually and bleating about the Constitution while it's being ripped up under your nose is something that has NIL effect. You may not have noticed but there have been LARGER anti-war marches BEFORE the war has even started in the US and STILL the US is going ahead, moving troops in, shifting munitions (THROUGH IRELAND) etc. It is admitted by most people that studied the Vietnam era peace protests that the "mainstream" came out against the war when there riots in the street and buildings burning. Here's good link about tactics: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2527
I would suggest that you look at Point #2 especially.

I wonder, Des, do you actually want to Stop The War, or do you want to be able to say After The War "Oh 'twas terrible, terrible. I was agin it, so I was. Wirra wirra"? Because the evidence is that you'll be in a wonderful position to do that unless you pitch in and join thousands at a direct action in Shannon.

QUOTE:
on the contrary, it was an opportunity for Ahern and Harney and the establishment press to smear all anti war campaigners as “vandals” and resulted in the closure of the peace camp. As I have stated
ANSWER: Don't forget to add "Des" in between Ahern and Harney.

QUOTE:
before, what is needed to advance the anti war campaign in the region and nationally is a MASS CAMPAIGN, not a series of individual actions by
ANSWER:
What is needed Des, is a MASS DIRECT ACTION. You've been told before when you posted this false Mass vs. Direct Action crap that there's no such dichotomy. The ideal best thing is MASS DIRECT ACTION. If people don't feel comfortable doing that then they can march, poster, leaflet, whine. But for God's sake don't keep on knocking the most effective tool in terms of media exposure and ACTUAL EFFECT.

The Catholic Workers and before them Mary Kelly have damaged part of the war-machine. Fair play to them. Now Des, it's your turn to go out and organise a demo in support of their actions. There's no opposition inherent in the two things.

by keep the focus Thu Feb 06, 2003 23:10

DF who gives a toss about the shite you are talking about. The media has covered it soo much everyone is bored with it. The war is more important right now. Next you will bore us with scoops on 'wacko''Jacko'

by redJaDe Thu Feb 06, 2003 22:09

the comment above reveals a lot ignorance.

if you are willing to learn about the Catholic Workers go read http://CatholicWorker.org

by DF Thu Feb 06, 2003 21:15

Catholic Worker? What is your stance on interference with childern? Do you defend child molestors? Are you opposed to divorce? Are you opposed to the women's right to choose?

by Des Thu Feb 06, 2003 20:52

There are times when it is necessary to speak frankly, Ciaron, Nuin, Deirdre, Karen & Damien may have had the best of intentions, but their “action” at Shannon was a disaster for the anti war campaign in the Mid West region. It was simply futile, the effect on the Bush/Blair war drive was NIL, on the contrary, it was an opportunity for Ahern and Harney and the establishment press to smear all anti war campaigners as “vandals” and resulted in the closure of the peace camp. As I have stated before, what is needed to advance the anti war campaign in the region and nationally is a MASS CAMPAIGN, not a series of individual actions by well intentioned but extremely misguided persons whose actions have not advanced the anti war cause but rather have inflicted serious damage on the struggle to oppose aggression against the Iraqi people.

by MG Thu Feb 06, 2003 20:27

"Everyone is dreaming in this country. Now it is time to wake up...

The storm is here. From the clash of these two winds the storm will be born, its time has arrived. Now the wind from above rules, but the wind from below is coming...

The prophecy is here. When the storm calms, when rain and fire again leave the country in peace, the world will no longer be the world but something better."

by shoegirl Thu Feb 06, 2003 16:51 shoegirl at eircom dot net

I added the link to the irish times breaking news so readers can see for themselves the increasing rabble of neo-fascist mentalities present in Ireland today. Even granted that many are ex-pats the utter denial about neo-republicanism and the totalitarian position of the irish state and complete rewriting of simple consistutional writs by people like Bertie and Brian Cowen prove that we can no longer rely on mechanisms like the supreme court.

The declaration that Ireland is "not really" neutral flies in the face of everything that was written into the consitution.

The chilling reality is that effectively this government/party has such a level of confidence, power and arrogance, they truly believe they can rewrite history and HAVE THE POWER to enforce it.

I think we have entered a very distrubing passage in Irish history. I find these developments deeply worrying and am most terrified at the number of ordinary paddy macs that are willing to go on voting for these guys.

by shoegirl Thu Feb 06, 2003 16:46 shoegirl at eircom dot net

I think this denial is the result of a lack of moral courage, a total absence of values other than material ones, and a dismal disrespect for the weak and powerless.

When people criticise the government for funding the abuse compensation claims, they forget that the system was pretty much designed and enabled by the state, largely as a result of total contempt for poverty stricken young people.

Ironically, the current youth homelessness crisis was largely triggered by the closure of Madonna House in 1995. It resulted in a loss of 50 residential places THAT WERE NEVER REPLACED.

Another chilling fact related to this is that of the 22 children who were residents in Madonna House when it was closed, 8 years later, 17 of the 22 are dead through (mostly) suicide or overdoses. 3 are IV drug users and 2 more are pretty much unproductive, but at least one of the two is deeply mentally unstable.

by Joe Ostrich Thu Feb 06, 2003 14:06

I would agree that within the population in general the debate is getting more polarized.
I notice now people in work who previously denied Shannon was being used, are now saying we
have got to think of our jobs. What it shows is that are lot of people are afraid and they
just go into denial about the whole thing, so as to justify their pro-government line,
which they eagerly lap up.

This is the same forcing of heads in the sand, in the way a significant portion of the
population did not want to believe the (economic) boom was over and instead voted in the
present government. My ecnounters and discussions with people increasingly make it clear
that there are many who openly do not want to read or know the truth.

I have often wondered about this behaviour and some research in evolutionary biology would indicate
that denial is a very effective evolutionary adaptation for survival, because it allows people to
cope to a certain extent. i.e. If you got your ass biten off (say 20,000 yrs ago) by some wild animal,
you would find it hard to live with the constant fear of it happening again, unless there was a
mechanism to wash it out of the mind.

by John Thu Feb 06, 2003 13:28

Ciaron is certainly right in saying that what was previously overt is now covert. And it seems to me that this has presented a challenge to the anti-war movement. The exposure of the utter emptiness of the platitudes of the Irish establishment —in politics, media, and business— has pushed many of its members into taking an openly pro-war stance in recent days. It seems too that this is having an effect on those in the general public who pay attention to such people.
Anyway, good on ye, Ciaron, Nuin, Deirdre, Karen & Damien

by jm Thu Feb 06, 2003 12:28 mrbyrr at yahoo dot com

the presence of weapons of war anywhere threatens our security. they act as deterrants against the free association of people, which is bad.
cheers to ploughshares and to mary kelly.