IAWM Hit Grafton Street

by Elaine Sun Feb 05, 2006 03:59

.

Donal Lets Rip - CIA Out Of Shannon

Donal Gives Dave Some Pointers - Yell Into This Bit

US Military Ut Of Shannon (The 'O' Is Silent)

by The Pen Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:04

Seems like an SWP stall to me. Exept with very low level political material and no mention of socialism. Seems like an SWP stall alright.

by ray Sun Feb 05, 2006 13:59

Nice to see that the SWP has been engaging with indymedia recently all the same . The policy of ignoring IMC and hoping it would go away was making them look stupid .
The Irish anti -war movement needs to get organized to make an issue out of these torture flights for the next election. In fact, it should be THE issue and Richard Boyd -Barret should stop double-jobbing . I know it's very important to save Dun Laoghoire baths , but he's supposed to be the co-ordinator of the IAWM. Choose your hat Richard .
Somebody organized a competition a little while ago to discover when the first mention of the flights was made on IMC . There was no winner .Nobody seems to have thought that there was a possibility that short-shackled prisoners could be transported through Shannon en-route for torture until after the Seymour Hirst revelations last year . Wasn't that a serious political failure for the IAWM ?
Turn next years election into a referendum on torture. In constituencies where candidates refuse to sign up to a no-torture contract stand anti-torture candidates . No coalition or Dail voting pacts with parties that allow torture - flights to pass through Shannon.

by Dave - Swp Sun Feb 05, 2006 14:36

We've never ignored indymedia or hoped it would go away ( I and others have been taking part all along - including with front page features)
Though we probably should write more stories to reflect the huge ammount of stuff we are involved in.
I agree that Shannon should be an election issue and it will be one wherever swp candidates stand.
I think part of the effect of a big turnout on M18 would be to pressurise the coalition minded parties like Greens, Labour and Sinnfein, who have all taken part in demos at shannon etc, to take a firm stand on Shannon in coalition negotiations.
Their supporters are generally against the war in Iraq and the use of Shannon as a warport.
Will their leaders be more interested in power than principle?
Of course, but only if they think they can get away with it.

by anon Sun Feb 05, 2006 15:10

Thats a pretty low standard Ray?, Dave even goes for a higher one, no military use of Shannon at the very least, didn't the Green party members already disclude Shannon military use from the election platform/pact line? Of course perhaps one shouldn't trust any political party that wants power says? I can't remember

Could any of you there that afternoon tell us what people said to you I think its not just swp hyperbole that more people were stoppping to say something.

by Yeti - ex-SWP Sun Feb 05, 2006 16:00

When people sign this petition at the SWP stall, are they made aware that they are dealing with members of the SWP? If not, why not?

Why are no efforts made by the SWP to make common cause with other parties who are against the war, such as SF or The Greens, to get them involved with iniatives like the stall. Would the campaign not be more successful if it was seen to have support across the political spectrum?

Is the phone number for the IAWM on the flyer an SWP phone number, in the party headquarters?

Are the personal details of people who sign the petition made available to the SWP for recruitment purposes? Are people liable to contacted and invited to other "anti-war" meetings and events, which are actually entirely organised by the SWP?

Will the SWP candidates who run in the election run under the names of front group, like the IAWM or ANTI-BIN TAX CAMPAIGN, rather than admitting that they are members of the SWP?

by Michael Y - iawm Sun Feb 05, 2006 16:13

To Yeti and Anon,

Why don't you good people come and join the anti-War activity, come and talk to people of the effects of the use of Shannon by imperial troops. Let us debate the current machinations against Iran. And please leave the anti-SWP rant behind...it does not work...may of us have joined and continue to join the iawm who are not and will not be in the SWP. And we work very well with the swpers. Of course, we may not be as politically perceptive and intelligent as you guys...but you get what you wish.... All you're doing is to lend credence to rumours that the anti-SWP line and ranting in Indymedia covers and hides more substantially pro-war and pro-US politics.

Solidarity

by ray Sun Feb 05, 2006 17:17

"All you're doing is to lend credence to rumours that the anti-SWP line and ranting in Indymedia covers and hides more substantially pro-war and pro-US politics."

I'm guessing whoever wrote that is a troll , but it may be from a naive SWP member who doesn't know there's been a slight shifting of line on the party's attitude to indymedia over the past few months. It's the sort of garbage you used to get from the SWP up until fairly recently ,but I can't imagine any member with any maturity or cop-on to actually come out with it on IMC. It would be no bad thing for Dave or somebody else from the SWP to disassociate from it anyway .

Somebody suggested that making torture an issue at the next election might be setting the bar a little too high . Shows how low the world has come doesn't it?

by Yeti Sun Feb 05, 2006 17:23

Dear Michael, I for one would happier about getting involved with IAWM if I had answers to the questions I put.

I note you didn't answer make any attempt to answer them.

I am very suspicius that the SWP are using the anti-war movement as a front for their narrow electoral purposes-hence their antipathy to involving other parties or indeed other strands of what is actually a very broad church.

Until those suspicions are dealt with, I and many others will be very dubious about getting involved with anything they organize.

by ray Sun Feb 05, 2006 18:03

Yeti asked :
"Is the phone number for the IAWM on the flyer an SWP phone number, in the party headquarters?"
That question should be answered Michael . In the run-up to and immediate aftermath of the IRaq war ,the SWP put off and pissed off many good activists by their tactic which completely identified the SWP with the anti-war movement . When people contacted the IAWM to get involved with local anti-war groups , they were put in contact with SWP members in their areas . It was all very well intentioned I'm sure , because the SWP serious believed that they were the only ones capable of articulating a consistent anti-war line . All very well-intentioned but thouroughly opportunist. .

by Dave - swp Sun Feb 05, 2006 19:05

The phone no is for the iawm office in the ATGWU hall.
It is by the way, as far as i can understand them, against the indymedia editorial guidelines, to make slanderous insinuations under cover of anonymity as mr yeti has done.
Every effort is made to involve the parties referred to- Greens, Sinn Fein, Etc. Questions about their involvement or lack of it should be addressed to them.
Labour youth are involved on organising the m18 demo as are a few other organisations.
In answer to Ray we have involved and engaged with many ,many people on the issue of shannon and anti war generally and will continue to do so. Our record on anti war work is second to none.
I am for united anti war movement and believe there is a place for all kinds of tactics, but it takes give and take on all sides to be able to work together. It would be naive to think that there are not some among us who do little else but try to sow division for their own nefarious reasons.
I am also interested in debate and wonder if the red baiters are interested in anything atall?
A few questions for them or anybody else. People might think more of you if you even tried to give a reasonable answer to them.
Should the Irish left support protests by the Muslim community against the Islamophobic 'cartoons'?
Will Bush bomb Iran and if he does what are we going to do about it?
Chavez has called for worldwide anti-imperialist front. How should the anti-war movement respond?

by Michael Y - iawm Sun Feb 05, 2006 19:15

To yeti and Ray

There are anarchists in the iawm, there are religious people -working or otherwise -in the iawm, there are socialists in the iawm, there are feminists in the iawm, there are....there are 'non-Party' students in the iawm...the issue is not whether the SWP, or the SP, or the Labour Party are or are not using the iawm for their political purposes....since my participation in it over the last 8 months I have not witnessed any antipathy from swpers towards outside involvement....what I have seen is a continuous anti-swp rant, particulalry in Indymedia...personal attacks on Richard...a lot of bullshit and some downright lies...such as the one recently accusing us in the iawm of not "caring" about Iran. The SWP may have fucked up in the past...they can answer for themselves. The issue of Shannon remains, the war goes on, people are being killed daily....that's what we care about. The rendition flights continue - that's what we want to stop.The anti-SWP brigade is, as far as I am concerned, a dangerous diversion for the moment. The SWP, according to Ray, is opportunist...it may be the case, they can answer for themselves. Or my friend Dave can anwer for it if he wishes. On Grafton Street last Saturday, there were 5 of us non swp, and 3 swpers.....when 300 people signed the petition, 50 gave their emails wanting to join...that's what I care about. And if yeti and Ray want access to their names...I am on ...let us meet and check it out.
As for Ray's comment that what I wrote earlier must have come from a troll..I let it go for the moment. But dear Ray, let me say this is indicative of a specific attitude that when people draw unpalatable political inferences of a certain activity...they are labelled spies, conspirators, provocateurs or ...trolls. SF used to do that, the Sticks and the CPI before them....and look at what happened to them. Argue your points dear friend and leave the epithets to the likes of the Minister of Injustice.

Solidarity

by hs - sp (per cap) Sun Feb 05, 2006 20:32

"Should the Irish left support protests by the Muslim community against the Islamophobic 'cartoons'?"

This is an interesting topic of debate. We could also ask should the irish left support cartoonists and journalists who have been threatened with death for drawing the cartoons, (whether you agree with them or not) And should we support fundamentalist priests and their supporters who are using this issue to spread their not very progressive movements. I think we should be prepared to stand up to priests from whatever religion. If we go down this road will we stop supporting womens or gay rights because it's offensive to a particular religion, will we support reactionary religious movements instead of socialist or even secular ones in the middle east? My enimies enemy is not always my friend, I won't support any right wing christian party or group or for that matter a right wing hindu group or a right wing islamic group. its not islamicphobia it's religious-phobia from an old fashioned secular athetist socialist.

by John Sun Feb 05, 2006 21:05

Michael,

Do the SWP have you on a retainer? You've been banging this drum about the SWP/IAWM for quite a while now...yawn, as you might say yourself.

Despite your occasional references on indymedia to your years of activism, the truth is that you only got involved with the SWP/IAWM very, very recently. You definitely weren't there in any obvious way during the height of the mobilisations or when the big split occurred in the IAWM in 2004. In fact, you're just what the SWP need to confuse people about the nature of their front - a vocal non-member defender who accuses all those critical of the SWP of petty and ill-founded sectarianism. Brilliant. Never seen that before (that's a joke, by the way).

The anti-war movement is getting on very nicely thank you very much without the SWP and their ever-changing priorities. After all, the recent 'turn' to prioritise Shannon is exactly that - recent. During the height of the mobilisation they actively undermined those who argued for a primary focus on Shannon and even went as far as to try and scupper the blockade called in December 2003. To put it bluntly, the RBBs of this world and their prioritisation of narrow party interests are a pain in the fucking ass. And so are willfully naive 'lets all stop being horrible to the SWP' types like yourself who seem incapable of distinguishing between sectarianism (what the SWP do in their front campaigns) and genuine repugnance at the political actions of the SWP. Short version: don't bore us with bull about negative analyses of the SWP/IAWM being political sectarianism! And no I have better things to do with my time than meet you in a cafe to rehash old arguments.

That's me done. I'll wander off to another thread now.

by me Sun Feb 05, 2006 21:15

If we are ever going to achieve anything if we put so much time and energy into fighting other activists. I would never join the IAWM (once bitten...) but seriously, how are we ever going to get any change if all this bickering keeps going.
Just shut up and let them do their thing.
Find someone who doesn't know capitalism sucks and the world is an unequal messed up place, and pick on them. There's lots of them out there.

by Dave - swp Sun Feb 05, 2006 21:16

Well as a socialist i believe we should always stand on the side of the oppressed. Even the look of the images is similiar to the anti-semitic drawings of the nazi press or the 'white chimpanzee' depictions of the irish in Victorian england.
Muslims are angry because the inference is clearly that they are all mindless bloodthirsty terrorists.
They are right to be angry.
They are right to be on the streets protesting.
We protest when tabloids publish refugee bashing articles so why not protest about this?
Of course the left cannot endorse death threats and the like, but every mass movement has its ultra extremes. To protest about animal cruelty is not to endorse death threats against scientists, for example.
We should be careful not to cut ourselves off from the mass of aggrevied muslims. Standing on the sidelines and lecturing about freedom of speech and 'secular values' (hitler was an atheist and so was stalin) is only likely to drive them into the arms of the fundamentalists. Indeed the stalinist and nationalist left, with their corruption and compromises, already bear a great deal of the responsibilty for the rise of fundamentalism in the midle east.
In ireland and england fundamentalists have a small following, but if the fundamentalists are the only ones engaing with the anger of the mass of muslims, then they are bound to grow in influence.

by John Sun Feb 05, 2006 21:29

Mr me, it's called political debate within the left. Falls to a low level at times, but still worth having. Here's my polemical retort to you for instance:

1. I spend everyday of my life fighting capitalism, arguing with its defenders and trying to convince people of the possibilities for a better society.

2. It's not a positive thing to have the anti-war movement hijacked by a small self-interested political group, that pursues its own narrow priorities. Especially when its role thus far has been so divisive. I make no apologies for stating this honest political fact.

by hs Sun Feb 05, 2006 21:45

I agree with much of what you say in general, but I think we have to be careful about this. Do we create a self sensorship where we can never critisise a relegion because a section of it's people are being oppressed. (many catholics are being oppressed too for example) We have to remember in much of the muslim world many people are being oppressed by the islamic religion itself, especially non hetrosexuals women and non believers. And in many muslim countries and communities islam is used as a weapon by the ruling class to stop all opposition to it. In much of the world they iman tells people who to vote for or not vote for much in the way the catholic church once attempted to rule here. I think the protest against the cartoons were way out of proportion to the cartoons. Are religious figures off limits to political satire? The way I have always seen religion and politics is, if priests of whatever religious persuasion become involved in politics they are open to political attack. islam is very much involved in politics, with a whole number of theocrays in existance. (which are opressor regiemes) If this is the case why shouldn't they along with all others involved in politics be open to satire. As for the cartoons, there is a section of fundamenatlist political islam which believes any of it's members involved in suicide bombings will go to paradise. This is a fact, and a satirical cartoon pointed this absurdity out. How can we be so offended by this (the cartoon), rather than the sectarian suicide bombings which are becoming more and more frequent. Does this mean we can never critisise a releigion? You are absolutely right in saying we should stand with people from the islamic community if under any form of sectarian attack. But we must be free to critisise individuals from the community or general ideas this community hold they we may disagree with.

by pat c Sun Feb 05, 2006 22:46

no reason why islam shouldnt be mocked. it was founded by an imperialist who spread his invented religion at the point of a sword. he was a rather nasty character who took a 9 year old wife.

i will fight racism and fascism but iwill not defend the right of muslims to censor the press. as far as i am concerned islamic fundamentalists are fascists.

both the BNP and Islamic Fundamentalists would have a new holocaust of Jews and Gays. They both wish to put women back in the home.

Islam is a homophobic, misogynist, anti-semitic creed. no socialist should in any way align themselves with these fascists.

Gay Rights!
Womens Rights!
Never Again!

No Gods!
No Masters!

by PAT C Sun Feb 05, 2006 23:05

To clarify what i wrote above: mainstream islam includes the belief that gays and "adulterous" women should be stoned to death. thats why islam is wore than christianity. you wont find even very many christian fundamentalists who believe in the death penalty for gays and women who dare to have a free sexlife.

ataturk knew how to deal with islamic fundamentalists. when the ataturk regime began introducing reforms such as education for women and getting rid of the veil, islamic fundamentalists rose up in defence of their traditional rights to treat women like animals. ataturk had 200 mullahs hanged in ankara. that settled that.

which side are you on?

on the side of liberty, womens rights, gay rights, jewish rights?

or are you on the side of misogyny, homophobia and anti-semitism?

its time the swp made its mind up.

no gods!
no masters!

by Starstruck - Grassroots Dissent Mon Feb 06, 2006 00:16

How laughable.
The thought of someone getting mad about someone else drawing a fictional cartoon about a fictional character from another story-book makes me laugh.
Granted all religious folk are free to be as devoted and idiotic as they want about their precious beliefs and books but the rest of us should be allowed to take the piss in innocent jest.
The end.

by observer2 Mon Feb 06, 2006 02:50

wasn't there a case in italy recently over a cartoon of pappa ratzi dressed as a nazi?

by Martin Mon Feb 06, 2006 13:42

Dave Lordan's defence of Islamic fundamentalism is nausceating. The SWP are now champions of Islamic Fundamentalism. They support Shia fundamentalists in Iraq who murder Sunnis, they support Hamas and now they are apologists for the fundamentalists who are rioting and killing people because of a cartoon.
The cartoon portrays all Muslims as terrorists and in that context it should be condemned, but there is no defence at all for the reaction from the Muslim extremists. Should the cartoon be banned, I don't think so, I don't agree with what it says but it isn't racist, as muslims are not a race. The cartoons last year with the new pope in the Nazi tank were not condemned by the left, catholics could have argued that it was saying that they were all Nazis, why didn't the SWP condemn that.
What next are the SWP going to call for the banning of the Satanic Verses? Or maybe the Life of Brian? It wouldn't surprise me if the SWP came out supporting the Iranian government or the Taliban.

by Propeller Head Mon Feb 06, 2006 13:54

"It wouldn't surprise me if the SWP came out supporting the Iranian government or the Taliban."

When the Shah was overthrown they did support the Ayatollahs calling it a stepping stone in the defeat of imperialism. They didn't say much about the thousands of secular socialists that were butchered by them though.

by ray Mon Feb 06, 2006 14:24

Michael sorry for thinking you were a troll yesterday ; but what you wrote gave me the impression that you were trying to make a show of the SWP by stating in such an egregious way the slanders and innuendos that group uses against those on the left who disagree with them . That's why I thought your friend Dave might have wanted to clear the matter up .
Now ,seeing that you’re not a troll , let me take you up on the point I was referring to. When you wrote

"All you're doing is to lend credence to rumours that the anti-SWP line and ranting in Indymedia covers and hides more substantially pro-war and pro-US politics."

Who did you hear these rumours from ?

by Michael R. Mon Feb 06, 2006 14:32

The IAWM helped to organise what was probably the biggest protest in Irish History of Feb 15th, 2003, when over 130,000 people took to the streets of Dublin. See article by IMC Editorial Group:-

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=29066

Among many other things they also brought Cindy Sheehan to Ireland whom I had the pleasure to hear speak and meet recently.

Whatever your feelings about the IAWM, help in whatever way you can to now make March 18th a success. No one is saying you have to join the IAWM, just help. Without help from as many people as possible, March 18th will not be a success. We owe this to the dead and the to be dead people of Iraq and elsewhere.

by Gummy Budgie - Nothing Suc(k) Seeds like a GB Mon Feb 06, 2006 15:05

....and think about it.

"Whatever your feelings about the IAWM, help in whatever way you can to now make March 18th a success. No one is saying you have to join the IAWM, just help. Without help from as many people as possible, March 18th will not be a success."

What do you a deem a success? Wasn't there a march in 2004 and 2005 to mark the anniversaries. Will it be a success to have another couple of hundred potential purchasers of the newspaper? Get a few bodies to the after march meeting?
Or might it have been a success to think of tactics to actually confont the state?

by Samuel Mon Feb 06, 2006 15:49

And take another deep breath!

"Among many other things they also brought Cindy Sheehan to Ireland whom I had the pleasure to hear speak and meet recently."

Well, bully for you. The IAWM-SWP faciltated you hearing and meeting Cindy Sheehan. That's nice. A big 'success'.

The Pitstop Ploughshares brought Rose Gentle to Dublin last year and I didn't see RBB, Kieran Allen or any other IAWMers at that. Oh wait, Rory Hearne may have been wearing his IAWM hat that evening - when he turned up to make an 'intervention' & promptly left.

Of course, what all of this begs is the question, what do we deem a success? Is it enough to amuse/satisfy ourselves & a few others with well known speakers (with all due respect to Cindy Sheehan who is a great woman).

Has our objective become to salve our own consciences? Or to undermine Irish support for the war?

If it's latter (which it should be) then civil disobedience at Shannon (like that at Faslane) is what we should be organising. A few hundred marching to the back of the Dail to listen to more empty bombast from RBB & the SWP's favoured few won't do it.

I'll be on the march (as everybody should be) but let's not delude ourselves about the nature of 'success'.

by Michael Y - iawm Mon Feb 06, 2006 15:55

ANSWER Coalition: All Out for April 29 in New York City!
End Occupation from Iraq to Palestine, to Haiti, and Everywhere!
Fight for workers rights, civil rights and civil liberties - unite against racism!

Dear friend,

300,000 Came to Washington on Sept. 24

In recent weeks the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition has been in the final stages for planning a national demonstration in Washington DC on April 29, 2006. This action was to follow the local and regional demonstrations for March 18-19 and youth and student actions scheduled on March 20 on the 3rd anniversary of the criminal bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq.

On September 24, 2005 more than 300,000 people surrounded the White House in the largest mobilization against the Iraq war and occupation since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. This demonstration was initiated by the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition in May 2005 and we urged a united front with other major anti-war coalitions and communities. We marched demanding immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq. We also stood in solidarity with the Palestinian and Haitian people and others who are suffering under and resisting occupation. Coming as it did following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we changed the demands of the September 24 protest to include the slogan ">From Iraq to New Orleans, Fund People's Needs not the War Machine."

During the past several years, and as demonstrated in a powerful display on September 24, the anti-war movement has grown significantly in its breadth and depth as the leadership has included the Arab and Muslim community -- those who are among the primary targets of the Bush Administration's current war at home and abroad.

The anti-war sentiment inside the United States is rapidly becoming a significant obstacle to the Bush Administration's war in Iraq. The anti-war movement has the potential to be a critical deterrent to the U.S. government's aspirations for Empire. At this moment the White House and Pentagon are issuing threats and making plans to move against other sovereign countries. Iran and Syria are being targeted as the U.S. seeks to consolidate power in the Middle East. Simultaneously the Bush administration is working to undermine the gains of the people of Latin America by working to topple the democratically elected president of Venezuela and destroy the revolutionary process for social change going on in that country. Likewise it is intensifying the economic war and CIA subversions against Cuba.

We believe that our movement must weld together the broadest, most diverse coalition of various sectors and communities into an effective force for change. This requires the inclusion of targeted communities and political clarity. The war in Iraq is not simply an aberrational policy of the Bush neo-conservatives. Iraq is emblematic of a larger war for Empire. It is part of a multi-pronged attack against all those countries that refuse to follow the economic, political and military dictates of the Washington establishment and Wall Street.

This is the foundation of the political program upon which the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition has organized mass demonstrations in the recent years. The fact that many hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York and other cities is a testament to the huge progress that has been made in building a new movement on this principled basis.

The people of the United States have nothing to gain and everything to lose from the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Haiti and the threats of new wars and intervention in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, the Philippines, North Korea and elsewhere. It has been made crystal clear in recent weeks that Washington is aggressively prosecuting its strategy of total domination of the Middle East. U.S. leaders are seeking to crush all resistance to their colonial agenda, whether from states or popular movements in the region. The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition and the anti-war movement is raising the demand, "U.S. Out of the Middle East."

At its core, the war for Empire is supported by the Republican Party and Democratic Party alike, which constitute the twin parties of militarism and war, and this quest for global domination will continue regardless of the outcome of the 2006 election. In fact, leading Democrats are attacking Bush for being "soft" on Iran and North Korea. Real hope for turning the tide rests with building a powerful global movement of resistance in which the people of the United States stand with their sisters and brothers struggling against imperialism and the new colonialism.

On the home front the Bush administration is involved in a far-reaching assault against working class communities as most glaringly evidenced by its criminal and racist negligence towards the people of New Orleans and throughout the hurricane ravaged Gulf States. While turning their backs on these communities in the moments of greatest need, the U.S. government is now working with the banks and developers who, like vultures, are exploiting mass suffering and dislocation to carry out racist gentrification that only benefits the wealthy. The administration is also working to eviscerate hard-fought civil rights and civil liberties, engaging in a widespread campaign of domestic spying and wiretapping against the people of the U.S. and other assaults against the First and Fourth Amendments.

In early December 2005, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition filed for permits for a national march in Washington DC on April 29, 2006. We were preparing to announce the April 29 action but in recent days we have heard from A.N.S.W.E.R. organizers in a number of unions that U.S. Labor Against the War was seeking union endorsements for a call for an anti-war demonstration on the same day in New York City. Having two demonstrations on April 29 in both Washington D.C. and New York City seems to us to be less advantageous than having the movement unite behind one single mobilization. As such, we decided to hold back our announcement. Subsequently, the New York City demonstration has been announced by a number of organizations. Underscoring the need to have the largest possible demonstration on April 29, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition has decided to fully mobilize, in all of its chapters and organizing centers, to bring people to the New York City demonstration on April 29. The banners and slogans of different coalitions may not be the same, but it is in the interest of everyone to march shoulder-to-shoulder against the criminal war in Iraq and the Bush administration's War for Empire, including its racist, sexist and anti-worker domestic program.

All out for a united, mass mobilization on April 29 in New York City

Can I add All out for a united, mass mobilization on March 18th in Dublin

by Michael R. Mon Feb 06, 2006 16:37

Re: Gummy Budgie & Samuel:-

What do I deem success?

"Ultimate" success is obviously:-

- The US out of Shannon
- The US/K out of Iraq
- The end of capitalism, neo-liberalism, imperialism etc. etc.

But achieving this is going to be a long hard struggle. In the interim I deem pretty much anything a "success" if it mobilizes people into some type of action or has an affect on the consciousness of people. As I believe it is only through a mass change in world consciousness that we will succeed in achieving real success..

But I take the general point that you and Samuel are trying to make - i.e. is having a march the "best" way of achieving success? Or should we be more going down the road of civil disobedience? I think it is a tough question and I do not know for definite. I basically see room for both and am supportive of both.

by Gummy Budgie - Nothing Suc(ks) Seeds.... Mon Feb 06, 2006 17:00

"But I take the general point that you and Samuel are trying to make - i.e. is having a march the "best" way of achieving success? Or should we be more going down the road of civil disobedience? I think it is a tough question and I do not know for definite. I basically see room for both and am supportive of both."

Fair enough that you take the general point and that you agree that is a tough question and that you are supportive of both. My general point would be that the SWP (in my eyes the contollers of the IAWM) have already decided that civil disobedience is to be discouraged.
You talk about deeming "pretty much anything a "success" if it mobilizes people into some type of action or has an affect on the consciousness of people."
I would suggest that on Feb 15th it was evident that the consciousness of Irish people was raised and is unlikely to be as high again on this issue. The problem is that for whatever reason the SWP didn't have the bottle to act upon this consciousness and proceeded to have weekly marches which quickly became weakly marches. Some of us of a more cynical nature believe that this was because they were more interested in keeping the focus in Dublin and therefore more beneficial for paper sales and possible recruitment and pushing for a mass mobilisation in Dublin on March 18th is more of the same and doesn't really address the issue of the continued use of Shannon.

by Michael R. Mon Feb 06, 2006 17:39

I do not know the reasons behind the IAWM’s approach after F15. What I would think now is that this march will be going ahead one way or the other. I, for one, would encourage everyone to get behind it and help in getting the “ordinary Joe” back out onto the street again. Shannon has obviously become a major issue in the media again, will hence be back in the minds of the public and hence this is an opportunity to mobilize people in big numbers again. I would also refer to Dave’s (of the Swp) point that:-

“I think part of the effect of a big turnout on M18 would be to pressurise the coalition minded parties like Greens, Labour and Sinnfein, who have all taken part in demos at shannon etc, to take a firm stand on Shannon in coalition negotiations. Their supporters are generally against the war in Iraq and the use of Shannon as a warport. Will their leaders be more interested in power than principle?
Of course, but only if they think they can get away with it.”

I don’t think he was lying when he said this.

Anyhow I hope real success is achieved one way or the other. At least I think we can all agree on that.

by anon Tue Feb 07, 2006 07:44

Dave is lying because he knows that won't happen as I said the Greens membership already voted not to make shannon an issue because they knew labour wouldn't either and they're their route to coalition power and what I meant to add is I can't remember the last time anyone on here identified themselves as a green party member there must be plenty around?

But I do think March 18th is happening at a very conincendental and interesting time re Iran etc, we can't let the powerful and rich on both sides stir-up shit to smooth their resource wars without us saying we don't want any part of it and to protest in some way on that day would be useful.