How would YOU 'wage Peace' in Iraq

by barry Wed Feb 19, 2003 05:13

Another option to add to the above would be to boycott those western companies currently selling high-value goods into Iraq to pamper saddams generals (BMW, Mercedes, Sony, Intel et al).

Also targeted might be those oil companies (mostly american) who purchase illegal Iraqi oil.

We could also target Turkey and Syria who take enourmous kickbacks from the shipment of such oil through pipelines accross their countries.

by ipsiphi Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:30

I note the following.
[It will be a moral war to remove an immoral regime.]
of london
[Tariq Ali suggested regime change was needed in Britain more than it was in Iraq, while the official banners told their own story].
mr friedlands bit to assembly...
[ the anti-war campaign has to make three sharp moves]...[oppose the Ba'athist regime]etc.,Phuqhead has done the summary.
what really really interests me is this...

the "elworthy & kaldor" duo from "Oxon research group" (it makes them seem just about respectable doesn´t it?) going on about "conflict resolution",and imagining change "change coming to Iraq the way it reached communist Europe or fascist Spain and Portugal, through gradual exposure to the outside world - and delivered by the people themselves".
wow eh? now Guardian policy is "UN led" hence the "Elworthy&kaldor" duo require "persistent UN hanging around and threatening".
this is not really a good thing.
it is a British thing. almost "hun-like".
but the Guardian reflects current anti-ar thinking in this respect....Mr Friedland notes most significantly the following...
["You can pick holes in such thinking - many UN members are hardly democratic paragons themselves; you can point out what might not work".]

my suggestion and those of a few of my peergroup is this "THINK MORE ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARAGON"
=don´t be scared!
i look forward to the next Mr Friedland liberated country piece.cheerzzzzzze Phqhd!

by ipsiphi - at the english paper Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:44 BCN them they only have 300,000readers.

Polly Toynbee ["One sign of the appetite for more radicalism came last week"]she´s speaking about an end to the two tier work force.
["What could they offer?"]...["Things are changing. Neither man may fall, but neither may regain the absolute authority they once wielded between them."]....["But Blair is mysteriously out of touch with the depth of this dislike. His blood brotherhood with Bush is a cynical piece of realpolitik that jars with the high moral tone of his rhetoric on freeing the Iraqi people."]
and the other "personality trusted journalist of the English ´Paper"
Paul Foot had a bed leg! ....
["There was only one advantage to being forced - by lameness - to miss the biggest demonstration of my life. I could watch the whole glorious pageant unfold on BBC News 24."]
ooooooooooooooooooooergh!
he watched it on indymedia but they never never never print that.
and the Guardians duo "Tristram Hunt and Giles Fraser" ...........sounds very posh.
are "Revolutionary Putney" they discuss Mr Edmund Burke and the French Revolution.
oooops.the english are thinking.
I have learnt by long and careful study on various artforms and crafts that when the English think, there is a "space opened" for change. They are not accustomed to think so, it provokes everytime the waving of the "For Burke, French revolutionary theorising was a sham compared to the unlettered wisdom of Britain's constitutional heritage, a heritage that could be subtly read among the civic monuments and rolling fields of our landscape"....total bollox.
and Mr David Clark of the bankclerkery economics says ["We cannot afford ro wait and see"]
he advises the thinking english rattling Polly toynbees cage of Westminister with morality and hobbled Foot at the "€uro" decision.

so the question the English Paper is really putting its readers is not the same as the assemblies of various disobedient groupings.
it is not "what do we mean by war or peace?"
it is rather "blast from the past"-picture of Churchill "2 fingers up 3 fingers down" salute "does Iraq crises have more in common with pre-War Europe or Suez?"

quite right. SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEZ.
lovely word.

by Phuq Hedd Wed Feb 19, 2003 19:06

What happens if we support UN measures? It's not a good way to run the world, currently it's a deeply undemocratic institution which allows vetoes to the "Great Powers" and a permanent place on the Security Council.

On the other hand, Freedland is implying that Iraqis would be happy to be killed for "democracy" (which the US denies it will implement!).

Can't simple opposition to the war be a valid statement on its own?

Why does Freedland think that we have to suggest a way of achieving regime-change if we're going to oppose the slaughter of thousands? It seems like a non-sequitur.

by Scwanz Fri Feb 21, 2003 13:30

In response to the first comment, I trust this means i won't be seeing krusties driving around in mercs or beemers anymore!