Children's Crusade

[andrewducker]

Thousands of children have walked out of their schools across Britain to stage anti-war demonstrations.

Staggering. Just staggering.

More here

Comments

[spaj.livejournal.com]

pathetic, and annoying.

Great, Tony Blair's a moron. He's completely come at this war from the wrong angle from the start. The war needs to happen. But to tell one Terrorist (Sadam) disarm or die, and tell another (The IRA) disarm please, and we'll grand pardons to 40 of your fugitive terrorist's really isn't sending a coherent message on terrorism. Further, ignoring the likes of North Korea because they choose to seems pointless.

He's a moron, and he won't get re-elected. Infact, soon, no one will even vote in the elections. the parties have managed to blur the lines between their own policies, and all that is really left is the unsavoury feeling that the person you voted for isn't doing anything like what he said he would, and that your taxes are being poured like molten gold, straight down the drain.

Great

I wonder why there's a wolrd recession???

Adam

[nosrialleon.livejournal.com]

And then, you'll know what it feels like to be American...

[spaj.livejournal.com]

no, Americans have the right philosophy:

If violence doesn't solve your problems, you're not using enough of it.

Ok, it might not solve their problems the way they'd like. But it will solve them the way I like. (I don't like humans, btw.)

Adam

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I keep hoping that all of the British Protests will cause Blair to stop backing the proposed war. He's a two-faced pseudo-liberal, but he's not a would-be dictator like Bush and I remain baffled why he keeps supporting Bush so strongly. I'm hoping he will eventually react to the rather gratifying amount of public pressure happening on your side of the Atlantic.

[andrewducker]

The war needs to happen

Why?

I wonder why there's a wolrd recession???

Because of vastly overvalued stocks in the late 90s and early zeroes.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Were they staggering? Blimey, and that was them on their way to the pub!

[derumi.livejournal.com]

If there is war, it is likely that many people will die in Iraq. If there is no war, it is likely many people will die in Iraq, quietly.

[spaj.livejournal.com]

Andy, that's media fueled bull-crap. The war in Iraq will not give the Americans much leverage on oil prices. It will just piss off the ARAB's who control the oil prices.

Don't believe the media just because they're not towing the party line. They're largely looking for ratings.

The war needs to happen to remove Sadam. Sadam is an evil person, and the country of Iraq is suffering under UN sanctions, which have thusfar failed to make Sadam do what he's told. He has killed and murdered an approximated 3 million of his own citizens in the past 10 years, since he invaded Kuwait. And the Iraqui people are either afraid to vote for anyone else, or else they all genuinely believe that Sadam is the best leader available.

If it's the former, as a democratic nation, as a philanthropic nataion (I dunno if that's brilliant use of the word), and as first world nation, we have a responsibility to help these people, even if it takes violence. I don't think that's the reason why Bush and Blair are going to war, but it's the reason I'd support.

If it's the latter, then something drastic will happen, either on one side, or another. I doubt it's the latter.

The world recession is not taking place due to overvalued stocks. The world recession has little to do with stocks and shares, in my opinion. It's a shift in attitudes, arising largely because people have been told the word recession. And people seem to be realising that their leaders are shit. And what's worse, they're realising there's nothing they can do about it. When 1.4? million people (that's one in ten people in London) march on the prime ministers office, opposing his actions, and he simply ignores it... well, that's bad leadership.

I don't agree with his reasons, but I agree that the war will be a good thing, for the people of Iraq.

I also feel there are several other nations which should be engaged in war.

Furthermore, I'm waiting with great interest, to see if President Bush is going to adapt Tony Blair's new policy on Terrorism;

Offering a complete pardon to the perpitrators of the September 9/11 attacks, in exchange for token disarmament of the Iraqui arsenal, infront of neutral (read don't understand disarmament) spectators.

This would exactly mirror Blair's offer in Northern Ireland, to pardon 40 TERRORISTS, in exchange from disarmament from a known TERRORIST group. That's some war against Terror. And certainly isn't capitulating to them in every way possible.

Grrrr..

Adam

[andrewducker]

Andy, that's media fueled bull-crap. The war in Iraq will not give the Americans much leverage on oil prices. It will just piss off the ARAB's who control the oil prices.

I never said anything about oil. All I said was "Why?"

The world recession has little to do with stocks and shares, in my opinion
I disagree. Economy is all about movement of money. The more the money moves, the better the economy. Money sitting in one place does fuck all for anyone. And because of the dot-com boom/bust, all the money is currently locked up tight and isn't being spent.

And people seem to be realising that their leaders are shit. And what's worse, they're realising there's nothing they can do about it.
In that case why, in the mid-term elections, were the republicans returned with a larger majority than at the presidential election?

Offering a complete pardon to the perpitrators of the September 9/11 attacks, in exchange for token disarmament of the Iraqui arsenal

What exactly has Iraq got to do with 9/11? There hasn't been a single piece of evidence linking the two. Osama Bin Laden is a fundamentalist muslim, Iraq is a secular dictatorship nor under Sharia law. Osama has previously called for Saddam's overthrow. The two events are not linked. None of the hijackers were Iraqi - most of them were Saudis.

[spaj.livejournal.com]

why, in the mid-term elections, were the republicans returned with a larger majority than at the presidential election?

less people voting doesn't mean a lower number of people will be elected. And there's no way of weighting the votes of people with higher intelligence. Smarter people tend to assume they're the only smart ones, and not vote.

If you're telling me that more people voted, all in all, then I'm shocked, but I don't think that's what you're saying.

What exactly has Iraq got to do with 9/11

Maybe I'm tired, but I was trying to illustrate a point about the abilities of our leaders to consistently apply policy where it suits, and not, where it doesn't. I'd personally welcome a war on Northern Ireland, if it meant it would get rid of Terrorism. I'd gladly suffer the civilian casualties, to take back some of the "war zones" that exist in Belfast and Derry. But no, Tony Blair has offered 40 fugitives pardon, as a carrot.

You apparently missed my point.

You also seem to be taking the view that I'm agreeing with our leaders reasons for war. They are morons, with no clear reason for war. None, save personal opinion, which is no way to run a country. But Sadam is an evil dictator, and should be removed.

I hope it doesn't create another evil dictator in USA. But that's no excuse not to take action against an EVIL DICTATOR who does infact exist.

Adam

[andrewducker]

I'd personally welcome a war on Northern Ireland, if it meant it would get rid of Terrorism.

Which it wouldn't do. As history has consistently shown, especially in Ireland/Northern Ireland, violence only begets violence. Attacking more simply increases the number of people involved in the resistance movements. I know the current situations is shiity, but it's still better than it's been at any point in the last 1000 years of Ireland's history and it's still slowly improving. It's going to take generations, but you dont' heal the wounds by applying petrol to them.

But Sadam is an evil dictator, and should be removed.
This doesn't seem to be a subject for disagreement. What does is how. Some people think that going in and bombing the shit out of Iraq is the best way to do it, others think that this will actually cause more problems. In fact, the CIA's intelligence reports a couple of years back showed that it was precisely the wrong thing to do if you wanted peace in the region.

[spaj.livejournal.com]

Firstly, I'm complaining about the governments policies. But you're still taking too much of a humanitariana approach to this. You don't seem to understand that things haven't changed in Ireland. People are no longer blown up wholesale. Instead, they are dragged outside, and individually given a kicking. Since the "violence" has stopped, in a headline grabbing way, quieter "violence" has rocketed. The terrorist organisations, lacking any quantifiable skills, or worthwhile qualities have become organised gangsters.

Meanwhile, the government continually agrees to scale back military and police presence, and any police action is branded unfair, and sectarian.

I haven't seen any "please stop fighting" campaigns in Glasgow, or Edinburgh, reputedly the hardest cities in the UK. But I don't go out in Belfast at nights, because frankly, I'm afraid.

Nevertheless, "I'd personally welcome a war on Northern Ireland, if it meant it would get rid of Terrorism." Note the use of the English language to express my feelings. Please learn how to translate it into Ducker more fluently.

This doesn't seem to be a subject for disagreement. What does is how

See, that's where you've lost me. For me, stopping Terrorism in Northern Ireland is a somewhat (And not totally) comparable aim. Different, utterly, but a desire to acheive a positive and good result. Comparable.

How seems irrelevant, as long as it's properly effected. Obviously, you don't want to achieve it by nuking Sadam. But not knowing the best way to do something isn't an excuse to not do it. And since I have no control over the war, (what with democracy being a thing of the past), evaluating the war itself seems pointless. All I can do is evaluate the end result. And in my opinion, it's likely to be a good result.

Adam

[andrewducker]

I definitely agree that Belfast has some nasty low-level violence going on. And that won't fade quickly. It'll take generations to pass. But bearing that in mind, there's not much to be done except to keep on working on things on a social level rather than going back to pointing guns at each other.

How seems irrelevant, as long as it's properly effected. Obviously, you don't want to achieve it by nuking Sadam. But not knowing the best way to do something isn't an excuse to not do it. And since I have no control over the war

There ya go again, assuming that war is part of the How.

[tisme.livejournal.com]

Andy, I'm posting this here, because I'm scared of Adam. Seriously, I just don't want to get embroiled in a discussion with him cos I'll just get all offended with my lack of detachment.

But I wanted to say I agree with your arguements. I do think that Saddam has to go. I don't think that killing thousands of Iraqis and some of our soliders whilst he finds a cave uninhabited by Al Quaeda to hang out in will help.

I'm just wondering if Adam just doesn't realise what war does, or if he's cold enough that he does, but thinks its a price worth paying. Seeing as how Adam continually surprises me, I just don't know.

And I'm from N. Ireland too, and yeh, things are pretty much the best they've ever been as far as I'm concerned. Going back to pointing guns at each other would be the worst possible thing to do. More actual work on changing people's minds at the grassroot level would be greatly appreciated, however.