pressure on Anti-War movement

Thursday February 20, 2003 12:10

by depp

The onus should remain on the war mongers to defend their war, those of us who protest should not let ourselves be sidetracked into a defensive position.

Sorry, Blair, Ahern etc. – why are we going to attack Iraq?
1. “WMD”? (no proof, no threat)
2. “Links to terrorists”? (don’t we all?)

Most people acept that 1 & 2 are exaggerated attempts to fool us into the war.

3. “To bring democracy” (I’d love it myself)

There’s no such thing as a Democracy Bomb. Democracy has to grow from the people upwards.

Now, the war mongers’ latest focus is on human rights;
4. “Because Saddam Hussein is an evil monster who kills his own people”.

There have been many articles/commentaries this week that put pressure on the Anti-War side, accusing us of siding with Saddam Hussein.

Those who say we must get rid of Saddam Hussein because he is brutal should be asked why don’t we get rid of all murderous world leaders, and all sham democracies?
Many of the Anti-war protesters are more anti-US (foreign policy) than pro Iraqi. That is ok. There is no need for shame re this. We see what the US wants to do worldwide, our eyes are not just on Iraq. The Iraqis deserve help, but so do many other nations’ people. Relying on the outside world to come and save you NEVER works properly. Ultimately, it is up to the Iraqi people to free themselves, and this they will no doubt achieve. Currently, we are killing them with sanctions – to stop the sanctions is the best way to immediately help Iraq. Send in UN peacekeepers, etc.
But no bombing, no invasion, no US military junta in power.
The UN should be about keeping peace not making war!

We cannot exclusively say Saddam is a tyrant, and not include other dictators (western friends). The hypocrisy is massive. If the UN wants to create some policy whereby it does not recognise any leader who has not been freely elected then that policy should be applied equally to ALL of those leaders. (How about royalty for example?) It is insane, unfair, immoral to select one leader and focus on him.

The main thrust of the Anti-War movement is not about the freedom of the Iraqi people. It is about stopping the US imperialists.
Remember, these US imperialists have a LONG TERM plan. They don’t need Iraqi oil now, but they might like it in 25 years. They want control over it now though.

The onus should remain on the war mongers to defend their war, those of us who protest should not let ourselves be sidetracked into a defensive position. We are killing no-one. We want no-one dead. We want peace. That’s what peace is – lack of death! We CANNOT let ourselves be accused in this way.

To summarise – when accused of letting Iraqis die I say

1) stop the sanctions
2) supply the Iraqi people with their needs directly, and protect this supply by UN peacekeepers if necessary.
3) There are many many other peoples of the world that need help too.

save preference

Comments (4 of 4)

letting people die

by Curley

Fri Feb 21, 2003 13:57

I think that accusing Saddam of using the money Iraq is getting in the food for oil program is skewing the truth slightly. This money is held by the UN, and if I can remember the numbers correctly, and I will look them up later, less than 30% has found it's way to the Iraqi government. A further 34% has been used to pay reparations to "interests" who lost out in the Gulf War including the Kuwaiti royal family and 200m which was paid out to Exxon/Mobil.

So the arms companies aren't the only ones getting fat from the program. Meanwhile the poeple of Iraq starve while those supposed to be looking after them, the Iraqi regime and the international community do what they feel like with the money. But you can't just blame Saddam for making that happen.

Protesters are not taking anyone's life

Fri Feb 21, 2003 10:39

The main point I was making above is that the international protests against war would have taken place whether the target was Iraq/ Iran / North Korea / Belgium or anywhere else.

The protests are AGAINST US/British imperialism, and FOR a peaceful, democratic, sustainable world.

The issue of freeing Iraqis from what nobody denies is a sick regime is a different issue. I totally disagree that a US invasion with subsequent US rule is the only way to help the Iraqi people.

It is wrong to accuse peace loving protesters of letting Iraqis die, do you equally accuse them of letting Ethiopians/ Zimbabweans/ Koreans etc. starve? Do you accuse them of letting all the downtrodden people on earth die?
The people out marching for peace are the people who DO care about those who are suffering in the world.

Yes, you are letting the Iraqi people die

by Avi Harari

Fri Feb 21, 2003 09:44

1) Sanctions are not the cause of the Iraq people's suffering, as Saddam Hussein channels the money he is supposed to spend on them on military projects. Therefore, stopping sanctions will not help them.

2) It is impracticable to supply the Iraqi people directly without changing the government. Saddam Hussein would not permit it. This would cause the war you are trying to avoid.

3) As far as the welfare of the Iraqi people is concerned, it is totally irrelevant what is happening in other parts of the world.

4) Saddam Hussein's regime is responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the death of over a million in the Iran-Iraq war, the creation of over four million Iraqi refugees, the genocide of the Marsh Arabs, the use of poison gas on Kurds (also Iraqis) and the torture of many others. In a prison beneath the streets of Bagdad, two different ex-prisoners have attested to the presence of a small gallows about 6' tall surrounded by piles of children's clothes: it is used to murder children. This is the type of government you want to leave in power.

Fri Feb 21, 2003 09:41

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

pressure on Anti-War movement

Comments (4 of 4)