Belfast Anti War movement Discussion

by Major Woody Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:31

John Rees is also one of the leaders of the British SWP. Is there a rule that STWC/IAWM meetings have to have an SWP leader as a speaker? Does this rule also apply to any of the other political parties involved?

by RED scare Mon Sep 08, 2003 12:21

Demonising the left is a long time strategy of the right. Beware of going to meetings / demos you'll get brainwashed - never mind the much more powerful ideological influences such as the mass media, the education system etc. This was the McCartyiate strategy in the US.
As for 'exposing' SWP members who speak at meetings (another scare tactic), this is complete nonsense. The SWP is completely open about its politics inside the movement - so open it makes some people uncomfortable - but we are completely committed to building the movement, hence SWP members who are on the steering committees of the anti-war movement speak in that capacity not simply in a party capacity - precisly because we are non-sectarian.
The question is what capacity are you speaking in? I am a trade union rep and an SWP member. When I meet management I do so as a union representative not as an SWP member - most people can grasp this!

by Major Woody Mon Sep 08, 2003 12:41

John Rees is often advertised as an SWP speaker at a lot of events. So it is no secret that he is a member! My questions are genuine, no red scare intended. Any answers? Or are you a red herring fan?

by Cynic Mon Sep 08, 2003 14:07

I see the SWP are maintaining their United Front with Muslim Clerics. Have the SWP cadres in Belfast been instructed to cease criticising persecution of Women and Gays?

by Sean Smyth Mon Sep 08, 2003 14:44 seansmyth1964@hotmail.com

If Monica McWilliams and the Women’s Coalition are against the war then why do they continue to hold meetings with Bush and his advisors, come March 17th Monica will in Washington kissing G.W’s BUTT.
She shouldn’t be invited.

Why not invite the other hypocrites who said they were against war, SF, SDLP ect: who met with BUSH and then said nothing when the RUC beat Anti-War protesters of the streets of Belfast.

By inviting the WC the IAWM have added insulted injury.

I for one will not be there nor at Sep 27th if any of the above have been invited.

by Anonymous Mon Sep 08, 2003 15:10

Sean,

Everyones got a problem with everyone. Major Woody above has got problems with the Swp. Others have problems with the Sp. Youve got problems with the WC, SF & the SDLP. Others have problems with Labour.

If we let all our problems get in the way the IAWM would consist of zero people, or close to that anyhow.

To have ANY chance of success against the might of capitalism/neo-liberalism - the anti-war movement must be as broad and as large as possible.

Critisizms of other groups are not to be negated. The critisizms must be kept up - but must be constructive in an effort to change all parties for the better - but they must not stop the building of coalitions and the building of strength for the left in Ireland.

Regards.

by Major Woody Mon Sep 08, 2003 16:05

Is there a rule that STWC/IAWM meetings have to have an SWP leader as a speaker?

Does this rule also apply to any of the other political parties involved?

The SWP may not want to answer but perhaps one of the other groups involved could.

by Badman - Placard waving revolutionists Mon Sep 08, 2003 16:39

It's my front and I'll cry if I want to. Of course the IAWM has to have an SWP leader at each meeting, how else would we get people to join the party. As for the other groups that are supposed to be on the steering committee - you don't think we actually tell them about these meetings before they happen, do you? Their job is to make us look less like the SWP, a bit of lace and chiffron around the edges to make the party look more attractive.

IAWM - SWP in lingerie.

by Righteous Pragmatist Mon Sep 08, 2003 20:08

I just want to run through a few points that left should take note of:
Before the Iraq War the U.S.A. and U.K. were accused by the left of conspiracy to seize the oil resources of Iraq.
The tyranny of Saddam Hussein, the talk of weapons of mass destruction and the war on terror were only a cover for their conspiracy. Am I Right?
The main reason for the Left's disgust of the invasion of Iraq was the idea of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying from aerial bombardment, the subsequent fighting in the cities and the fighting in the cities. The belief was that most of Iraq would be laid waste and millions more would die in the aftermath from disase and famine.
They also put forward the view that thousands of American and British lives would be lost in a Stalingrad like battle for the capital Baghdad.
They also believed that not only would the U.S. invade Iraq they would occupy it for ever.
This would be typical of American Imperialism.

However if America and Britian were really after the oil of Iraq they are not making a profit.
Any capitalist worth his salt invests money and in return profits perhaps doubling his money.
The U.S. and Britian have could spend hundreds of billions of dollars before their occupation and re-building of Iraq is over. That is even before Iraq will be up and running as a viable country. The return in oil revenue will be in the ten of billions.
Hardly a good investment.
Maybe the Yanks and Brits are fools?
Every Socialist's enemy is the extreme right.
Look no further than Saddam Hussein. He had a cult of personality built around him. He had a monopoly over Iraq's resources. He had a one party state with no democratic free elections and allowed no freedom of dissent. Never mind what support he got from imperialist abroad, never mind motives of "liberators" or whether he had weapons of mass destruction or not, he was not the rightful ruler of Iraq. The Iraqis tried repeatedly to overthrow him and suffered ever more oppression. So they needed help.
The U.S. and U.K. forces did just that if only for their selfish motives.
The hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths did not occur and Iraq was not destroyed totally.
Rather the main casualties were Iraqi troops and Republican Guard, Baath Party loyalists who died in their thousands under the B-52 bombardments as they manned a static defensive line south of Baghdad. The main targets in Baghdad were command and control centres and Saddam and his sons who were very nearly assassinated. this is why the regime crumbled in the space of three weeks.
The Left presumed a week into the land war that America were bogged down and had entered a quagmire. However suprise suprise Baghdad was in the Colations hands two weeks later with the loss of about 120 casualties through out the entire campaign.
Unfortunately less than 10000 Iraqis were killed in the fighting. But fortunately less than the hundreds and hundreds of thousands expected to die by the Left.
WMD were assumed to exist based on the evidence of many experts including UN inspectors, and eminent men such as Dr. David Kelly. Hans Blix was being led a merry dance by the Iraqis so far that he was willing to overlook that fact that before the war Iraq was found to have weapons of mass destruction and gave no evidence to prove to the world that they had destroyed them as they claimed. Nobody could take Saddam at his word due to his evil nature and support for Palestinian terrorism is Israel.
The U.S and U.K. believed genuinely that Iraq had WMD. It ended up that they could only prove it by fighting a war. The other way of proving it was to wait for Saddam to fire these weapons at Israel or wait ofr terrorists in New York use them in the subway.
Where are the weapons now?
Consider the fact that it took two months to discover the entire Iraqi Airforce of MiG-25 fighter planes buried in the middle of the desert. These were big planes and it took two months to find them! 10000 gallons of chemical agents for instance could be hidden in barrels and easily dispersed in a country as vast a France. No wonder they found nothing! No wonder the captured members of Saddams regime are confident in keeping their mouths shut!

Another interesting point.
If America was just deciding to hit at any country they didn't like in revenge for 911 why invade a country half way around the world and spend so many billions? Why would Bush risk his entire political career for bogus claims of WMD? Why risk the wrath of the American people?
He's stupid? Hardly.
If he was really slow witted and wanted have an easy time of it why not just invade Cuba and blame Castro fo the 911 attacks? It would have been an easy invasion and would have gotten back at him for the Bay of Pigs.
The Left should stop the conspiracy theories and be happy that Iraq's future what ever it may be does not include Saddam Hussein.

by R Isible Tue Sep 09, 2003 00:44

now all that has to happen is that the Bush has to go. And he can take Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac with him. So far hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children (defined as under 5 years of age) have died as a result of the sanctions imposed by the UN and the bombings by US and UK planes. So "the Left" is still unhappy about that. When we consider that Saddam was a creation of the USA then we become even unhappier. Another small problem is the fact that no WMDs have been found and there is no democratically elected Iraqi parliament. Why do I bother to reply to you? Well, it's the faint hope that you will actually make a list of the objective features that you expect to see under Freedom and Democracy and then note that the evidence is that the USA, UK and all the other capitalist States consistently destroy those features. Then you'll understand why "the Left" is unhappy.

by >>>>>Seáinín Tue Sep 09, 2003 04:26

After the Left did everything it could to keep him in power this year. What a bunch of hypocrites you people are.

Nobody in the left was juming up and down in the streets when Clinton sat back and let Saddam ignore binding UN resolutions which caused thouands of Iraqis to die.

It's just that you people can't stand that GWB is rich.

You people have no conscience.

by Seanin's Special Arse Service(SAS) Tue Sep 09, 2003 14:01

The left didn't keep Soddem in power, it was actually right wing nazi dynasty Prescott Bush/George Bush snr and the US that put Soddem in power over the iraqi people. For many years the US propped up and defended Soddem.
The Iraqi people have no love of soddem and even less love for the US who've propped up soddem for many years, no wonder they're going berserk in basra.
Seanin has no conscience, no powers of perception , little knowledge and very poor memory.

by Righteous Pragmatist Tue Sep 09, 2003 21:44

Yes the "imperialist" west did support Saddam but NOW they got rid of him as they got rid of the Taliban too.
They are in fact listening to the Left and cleaning up the world finally.
The use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq has forced the rest of the undemocratic and evil regimes in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya etc. to sit up and take notice.
They can now no longer ply their support for religious extremist terrorism with out risking a blacklash or overthrow by external military force or else by western supported rebel groups internally.
Let's face it the Left wants to see democracy, free speech, religious and personal freedom in Arab countries just as much as the Right does.
I'm a conservative. I want to conserve freem and democracy. The people of those countries are refused these rights by their evil masters.
I believe that 911 was a wake up call to the West to stop dealing with dictators and extremist groups for short term strategic reasons e.g. supporting fascist Iraq in order to fight Islamic extremist Iran in the 1980's or supporting Mujihadin fighters and Islamic terrorists in oder to overthrow the despotic Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980's.
I believe that the Western leaders realise that they must quell these forces or else the innocent western masses who knew nothing of these conflicts will suffer from continous terrorist attack.
For the stability of the entire world peoples like the Iraqis should be supported militarily and finacially to change from despotism to parliamentary democracy with free and open elections.
George W. Bush has promised 87 Billion dollars to rebuild Iraq.
After the invasion and the looting Iraq must be rebuilt and pacified. I believe the U.S. and U.N. have common cause.
It is clear that if U.S. troops pull out and they were replaced by U.N. troops they too will come under guerilla and terrorist attack and would have to shoot back.
The assassination of Sergio De Mello shows that the terrorists see no distinction between the U.N. or U.S. despite the distinction the Left may see.
It doesn't matter what politics either Right or Left we in the western countries believe, our common enemy is terrorist and religious maniacs in the Middle East who want to destroy us all. We have to fight for our freedom and the freedom of people everywhere who just want to live in peace.
But we can't continue to have peace if we ignore the threat of terrorism, blame our democratically elected political masters instead and inviting military defeat in the war on terror in the process giving all the more incentives to Ossama Bin Laden to continue to launch attacks on innocent men women and children who are just living their quiet lives all over the world.
Our common humanity unites us as brothers and sisters. The terrorists hate freedom, love, beauty, tolerance and justice. They are twisted bitter and destructive. We togehter must stop them capture them and kill them if necessary to save ourselves and the lives of others.
"No greater love hath a man than to give his life for his friends".

by >>>>>Seáinín Thu Sep 11, 2003 01:12

But don't say that Dubya is "listening to the left". After all, Clinto had 8 years to deal with Saddam and he did nothing except let saddam kill more Iraqis by not complying with UN resolutions.

The Left were quite happy to let this policy of appeasement continue for decades. Beats having to make a decision.

The US has not suddenly "woken up" to the fact that working with dicators is counterproductive. The US only used these guys as pawns in the Cold War and now it doesn't need them anymore, so the removal of Saddam is part of a tidying up process.

Here's to a free democratic Iraq in a few year's time.

by Yossarian Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:33

Righteous pragmatist, the US/UK demonstrate their new policy of only supporting the nice guys in the current Afghan war where the terrorists of the so called Northern Alliance are used as proxy ground forces against the Taliban. These are the people who destroyed Kabul in the nineties, who have no more respect for women than the Taliban, etc.

Seanin, do you seriously believe Clinton to be of the "left". If so, please check into your local psychiatric hospital (along with most of the rest of the country unfortunately, 'cause that's what we've been told for years; Clinton is as much a "lefty" as Blair). The "left" were not happy with any policy of appeasement, in fact, much as they disagreed with the purposes of the first war against Iraq, they did hope that the resulting revolt by the Shias and Kurds would be successful. Unfortunately the yanks/brits/rulers of the world didn't share the "lefties" desire for an Iraq run by the Iraqis so they encouraged Saddam to slaughter them (by relaxing no-fly restrictions allowing Saddam to bring helicopter gunships and troops into the area), something which I am sure they have not forgotten.

by pasionaria Tue Sep 23, 2003 04:42

pathetic comment .. really..

do u suggest that people should hide their politics, or do you mean that the swp members should not get involved in anything..???

get over the sectarianism,,, please