Massive World Protests Tomorrow - Page 8

Spiffor · February 15, 2003, 19:13

I didn't go to the rally in Stuttgart today (50 000 protestors according to Axi's figures... Not bad for a 500 000 inhab city

), because this night was the only one I could spend with my gf this week. No way I'd interrupt it at 11:00

MOBIUS · February 15, 2003, 19:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

So basically, you realize that he doesn't care, and yet you let him know anyway? Do you realize how stupid that is?

I think you'll notice I couldn't be bothered marching...

Quote:

Yeah, that's the ticket. Blair is calling the shots, Bush is his puppet.

Actually, every single time Bush has said 'that's it', Blair has been able to delay him. Each delay has been because of Blair. You know, I used to think that Blair was his puppet, but I've been changing my mind lately...

Quote:

Mobius, Britain lost its status as a relevant power many years ago. It's the US' b*tch these days, much like most other western nations, whether they politely protest or refuse to send troops or not. No one will stop them.

Yes it did, coming to the aid of its allies and fighting evil while the US sat on the sidelines growing rich. Britain's debts to the US from WWII were its undoing. The day that Britain has to really choose between the US and Europe is fast approaching...

Quote:

The US is the centerpiece for the modern world, chances are the rest of the world would be hurt more by the world turning its back on the US.

In the short to medium term maybe, but then revolutions are always messy...

Demerzel · February 15, 2003, 19:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
The US is the centerpiece for the modern world, chances are the rest of the world would be hurt more by the world turning its back on the US.

back 20 plus years ago, that would have been very true but now the EU is fast growing and has an industry equal to the US ( though military spending is far far behind ). China and other countries are fast improving their economies and world reputations. Finally and possibly most damning for the US, is the fact that a lot of countries that were formally staunch US allies are finding that they more often than not recently disagree with US policy, e.g. Kyoto treaty. This will lead to the US being isolated if they do not stop persuing such unilateral policy decisions.

Drake Tungsten · February 15, 2003, 19:24

Quote:

Actually, every single time Bush has said 'that's it', Blair has been able to delay him. Each delay has been because of Blair. You know, I used to think that Blair was his puppet, but I've been changing my mind lately...

This is actually a good point. Blair has managed to gain Bush's ear and affect the shape of US policy. He did this by being a good ally. Blair has been loyal to the US by expressing his differences with Bush in private, not by openly opposing America in the UN. By being loyal and gaining Bush's trust, Blair has been far more effective than any other world leader in changing US policy. France and Germany could learn a thing or two about diplomacy from Blair...

Spiffor · February 15, 2003, 19:32

I don't think the goverment of France or Germany really give a damn about the war, if they get their share of the oil cake (since the diplomatic storm has abated, I expect there will be a satisfying agreement for all governments soon, and France will hypocritically send the Charles de Gaulle, as well as many crews to support the US military, and Germany will relieve the US of much post-war costs).
However, the French and German public opinions are strongly against the war, and their governments have earned some cheap legitimacy very quickly. You'll hardly find someone in France who disagrees with Chirac on this issue. That allows Chirac to further destroy our welfare system and our public services without problems.

Comrade Tribune · February 15, 2003, 19:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
By being loyal and gaining Bush's trust, Blair has been far more effective than any other world leader in changing US policy.

Only he didn´t change it.

Much more to learn from that guy in North Korea. 'Mess with us, and you´ll lose the West Coast.'

Now *THIS* is an argument the United States understand.

Really a pity Iraq has no A-bombs.

Demerzel · February 15, 2003, 19:40

Blair has managed to get Bush to weaken on smaller issues but has failed to cause any policy shifts. For the amount of political pressure Blair is now coming under, you've got to wonder if it was worth it.

Iraq is unlikely to be able to cause any significant causalties to any attacking American force and thus is "to be liberated". N.Korea could and probably would do severe damage to S.Korea and kill large numbers of their and US personnel. Thus it is "to be contained", comical.

Comrade Tribune · February 15, 2003, 19:51

One could actually say North Korea is containing the US.

Drake Tungsten · February 15, 2003, 20:00

Quote:

Blair has managed to get Bush to weaken on smaller issues but has failed to cause any policy shifts.

Getting America to go to the UN was a major policy shift. Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to avoid the UN altogether and were winning the debate until Blair and Powell managed to persuade Bush. Blair persuaded Bush to give the UN another chance, which France has managed to **** up nicely.

Demerzel · February 15, 2003, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Blair has managed to get Bush to weaken on smaller issues but has failed to cause any policy shifts.

Getting America to go to the UN was a major policy shift. Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted to avoid the UN altogether and were winning the debate until Blair and Powell managed to persuade Bush. Blair persuaded Bush to give the UN another chance, which France has managed to **** up nicely.

hmm if it's true then I do humbly apologise old chap

I still feel that Blair is risking too much political capital trying to moderate Bush unless he has enough sway with him to stop the US attacking. If Blair can't stop Bush ordering the attack but can get the 2nd resolution then he'll survive and probably look pretty astute in his actions, but attack without it and he's pretty much toast. Public and MP ( esp. of his own party ) opinion is far too against it for him to stay afloat.

Spiffor · February 15, 2003, 20:03

Drake :
Basically, you would have loved it if the UN only told to Bush : "you're great, go ahead and do whatever you want" ?
Maybe the role of the UN was to wholly agree with the superpower ?

Sandman · February 15, 2003, 20:04

Me and 80000 others marched in Glasgow. A truly beautiful day for it too, with not a cloud in the sky (except for oil refineries and stuff like that). Everything was blanketed with frost, a good omen. Blair was scheduled to speak at the conference, so we had a good chance to let him know our feelings firsthand.

Unfortunately, Blair changed his speaking time and had fled the city before we arrived outside the conference hall. Still, it was pretty inspiring, with most of the Labour Party conference attendees coming out and joining in the rally.

Drake Tungsten · February 15, 2003, 20:23

Quote:

I still feel that Blair is risking too much political capital trying to moderate Bush unless he has enough sway with him to stop the US attacking.

Blair may indeed be risking his political career, but he's doing the best thing for the United Kingdom. He has shored up Britain's position as America's most favored ally, while France and Germany are on a straight course to America's doghouse.

Comrade Tribune · February 15, 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
...while France and Germany are on a straight course to America's doghouse.

To give the dog a good trashing?

I wish the dog stayed in its doghouse, and didn´t sniff around in other people´s affairs so much.

Darius871 · February 15, 2003, 20:30

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

The reason for this war is unjust, it will only become just when used as a last resort - and not as a first resort as the americans intended!

Wasn't the first resort that Saddam would cooperate with the UN inspectors and actively disarm?

Quote:

Originally posted by axi

and

Baghdad 100.000

I find it cute that the people who would actually get bombed barely have a showing, while armchair liberals thousands of miles away, who would have nothing to do with this war, gather by the millions. Strange, huh?

Comrade Tribune · February 15, 2003, 20:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Darius871
Wasn't the first resort that Saddam would cooperate with the UN inspectors and actively disarm?

Why should he actively disarm, when he is threatened with war?

If you Americans are so hot about disarming, start at home.

Darius871 · February 15, 2003, 21:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Why should he actively disarm, when he is threatened with war?

Threatened with war IF he does not disarm. The threat of war is his only incentive for cooperating.

Spiffor · February 15, 2003, 21:08

Darius871 : do you think the US had spent so much effort and money just to get a tinpot dictator to disarm ? And do you think the US will send its troops back home if he actually cooperates ?
If the US only wanted disarmament of Iraq, I highly doubt they'd have shown so much force, and such determination to go to war from the beginning. The very fact of waging war must be percieved as good for American interests in the White House.
Otherwise, there wouldn't have been such a commotion when France, Germany and Russia demanded to look for a diplomatic solution.

Darius871 · February 15, 2003, 21:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

do you think the US had spent so much effort and money just to get a tinpot dictator to disarm ?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
And do you think the US will send its troops back home if he actually cooperates ?

Yes, but it's pointless to talk about since we all know he won't cooperate.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

If the US only wanted disarmament of Iraq, I highly doubt they'd have shown so much force, and such determination to go to war from the beginning.

The threat was needed to give Saddam incentive to disarm. Answer me this: if the word war had never been used, do you think inspectors would be in Iraq today?

OneFootInTheGrave · February 15, 2003, 21:29

Check this out:

Quote:

An astonishing display of global people power saw similar sentiments echoed from Bulgaria to Japan. 'I look at Bush but see Hitler,' proclaimed the banner of a protester in Sofia.

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story...896550,00.html

Spiffor · February 15, 2003, 21:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Darius871
Answer me this: if the word war had never been used, do you think inspectors would be in Iraq today?

Most probably not. If there is no war, but a satisfying disarament from Iraq, I'd congratulate Bush and his team to have solved this crisis, in which the latest 12 years braught nothing but death and famine.
However, as I don't think the US' goal is solely disarmament of Iraq (some talk about a regime change, some talk about having a foot in the area to pressure Saudi, some talk about this, some talk about that...), I don't think the war is avoidable. Except if the US public opinion suddenly becomes rabidly anti-war.

Darius871 · February 15, 2003, 21:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Most probably not. If there is no war, but a satisfying disarament from Iraq, I'd congratulate Bush and his team to have solved this crisis, in which the latest 12 years braught nothing but death and famine.

Well if you would concede this, why not go one step further and agree that whether or not there is a war is Saddam's choice?

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't think the war is avoidable.

Because of Saddam's decision to not comply.

axi · February 15, 2003, 21:50

There is a global count of demonstrators, and they currently exceed 12.000.000, as news from the Americas are coming in. Of course the estimates change all the time.

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?...&group=webcast

DinoDoc · February 15, 2003, 21:51

Is there no credible source you could go to for numbers?

Spiffor · February 15, 2003, 21:52

Sorry if I was unclear.
There are too many reasons to go to war. Even if Saddam cooperated fully (which he'll never do), the US will still bomb Iraq.
The war on Iraq is clearly a Bushie decision, and will happen in all circumstances except one : if the US population becomes rabidly against the war, which will not happen.

Comrade Tribune · February 15, 2003, 21:56

Yes, the war will happen. The only question is: how much will it backfire? An awful lot, I hope...

Spiffor · February 15, 2003, 22:01

Comrade : you might change your mind when bombs will blow in Vienna's subways and stores.

Demerzel · February 15, 2003, 22:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Comrade : you might change your mind when bombs will blow in Vienna's subways and stores.

how likely is it though that they will? What would Iraq have to gain by that?

Terrorists might but as has been proved there is no link between Al-Quaeda ( sp? ) and Iraq, so attacking Iraq would have no effect on them.

Comrade Tribune · February 15, 2003, 22:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Comrade : you might change your mind when bombs will blow in Vienna's subways and stores.

Neither Iraq nor even OBL or whoever you have in mind has the slightest interest in harming Austria. That we are pro-Arab is more or less a given with all parties concerned.

Spiffor · February 15, 2003, 22:08

Iraq would have nothing to win by using terrorism in Austria (heck, it'd have nothing to win by using terror, wince they invested heavily in classical weaponry instead of terrorism)
But the real backlash you can expect from the slaughter would be more hate from the Arabic World towards the West. The US will be the main target of this terrorism, but other countries will suffer from it too, no doubt.