Peace rallies; Solidarity for Saddam and terrorism

[danholo]

The title of the thread is misleading. I really have nothing against anti-war protests but today's vast rallies made me somewhat angry. First of all, they have nothing to say against Saddam and secondly those damn pro-Palestinian supporters stick their faces into every protest and event waving their unoriginal flag. It seems like pro-Palestine stuff is some kind of trend. At this (http://www.mrflag.com/) site the Palestinian flag is the top item. In London's Hyde Park, there was a big banner on the stage with "No War On Iraq" and below it "Freedom for Palestine".

What's the connection?

One of the speakers in London told that he wants to see inspectors in Israel (the crowd cheered loudly), the US and UK. I also call these people damn ignorant and stupid if they equate these three countries with Iraq.

It might not be on their direct agenda but supporting a brutal dictator and terrorism is exactly what is the result of these marches since the protesters are unaware of the solidarity that is shown. Well, at least these people are making their voices heard.

[localbrew]

I hear you Dan. Awe let them have their say. There will always the 1% protesting for 25 different things at the same rally. These nuts would be quite happy to see all democratic countries get rid of their WMD and leave the world to the likes of China, N. Korea, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan with nukes and other nasty things.

In all the countries I have mentioned about 1% of the people control the masses. Just about the same amount as protest against democracy. Isn’t it truly ironic?

What exactly was it they were protesting against? It surely wasn’t Saddam or Iraq. Surely they didn’t protest against the plight of starving people in Zimbabwe or for the millions living in that prison camp called N. Korea or Iraq or Iran. I didn’t hear one word of protest for the more than one billion living under a brutal dictatorship in China. So why are they so concerned about the Iraqi people?

Here is the real double standard that absolutely sickens me. These stupid protesters seem to be OK with allowing Saddam to control, oppress and kill as he chooses the 20 million people in Iraq and assert if we attack Iraq WE will kill 500,000 of them. Where did they get this ridicules number from in the first place? This same group will be on the streets again when we threaten to do something about N. Korea. Just watch, it will be exactly the same people and they will use their same tired stupid argument that any such action will kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

But still, they have every right to express their views.

[Northlander]

What exactly was it they were protesting against? It surely wasn’t Saddam or Iraq. Surely they didn’t protest against the plight of starving people in Zimbabwe or for the millions living in that prison camp called N. Korea or Iraq or Iran. I didn’t hear one word of protest for the more than one billion living under a brutal dictatorship in China. So why are they so concerned about the Iraqi people?

Why are you NOT concerned about the Iraqi people?

You are not well informed of the demonstrations if you think there were no protests against Saddam. There were plenty.


Here is the real double standard that absolutely sickens me. These stupid protesters seem to be OK with allowing Saddam to control, oppress and kill as he chooses the 20 million people in Iraq and assert if we attack Iraq WE will kill 500,000 of them. Where did they get this ridicules number from in the first place? This same group will be on the streets again when we threaten to do something about N. Korea. Just watch, it will be exactly the same people and they will use their same tired stupid argument that any such action will kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

There will be no military action against N.korea from USA despite their WMDs.

[localbrew]

Northlander,

It's you who do not care about the iraqi people. Leaving Saddam does nothing to help them.

The protesters in the USA sure were not protesting against Saddam from what I saw on the news channels here. These are anti-American/UK/Israel protests pure and simple.

Who really cares about protests in the rest of the world. What do they matter anyway? I don't see any other countries besides the UK and Australia warming up the bull pen. We sure as hell don't need the likes of Sweden or Germany or France to give us permission to use our troops.

[Northlander]

Ok, fine by me. Lets part once and for all then. I have nothing against living side by side with the US but no way Im going to accept that you use your troops whenever you like wherever you like. Then its for the best we are on the opposite side in all this.

Good luck in dealing with the rest of the world your ways.
Do expect to be challanged, politically, economically, and by some, with war and terrorism.

BTW. For you the protests doesnt matter. But I guarantee that it matters for Labour in Britain. Go to war, fine. But you will lose the next election Tony Blair. Its hell living in a democracy is it not?

Also, you have not seen the protests when the war starts.
Do not belive the rubbish about the whole european continent consisting of pacifists. As soon as Iraqi civilians starts to die by your troops many people will not stick to walking peacefully on the streets. Maybe you dont care personally but its stupid to pretend it doesnt affect you as a nation or people.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42698-2003Feb7?language=printer


The Best Dissent Has Never Been Anti-American


By Michael Kazin

Sunday, February 9, 2003; Page B03


As the U.S. military prepares for war, millions of Americans are seeking a way to stop it. Hundreds of thousands of them have attended national demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco. Local protest -- on campuses, in churches and by labor union members -- is broader and louder than at any time since the Vietnam War, more than three decades ago. Most Democrats running for president, eager to keep step with the party's base, have warned the White House against rushing into war.

But the American left, the natural vehicle for opponents of imperial overreach, remains a tiny persuasion -- and a sharply divided one at that. The organizers of the recent Washington and San Francisco marches refuse to say anything critical of Saddam Hussein; many belong to the Workers World Party, whose stated goal is "solidarity of all the workers and oppressed against this criminal imperialist system." That viewpoint dismays liberals such as philosopher and editor Michael Walzer, who calls for a "decent" left that would never apologize for tyrants. But whatever their views on Iraq, no one in the current peace movement has put forth a moral vision that might unite and sustain it beyond the precipice of war.

Progressives once had such a vision, and they derived it from unimpeachable sources -- the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They articulated American ideals -- of social equality, individual liberty and grass-roots democracy -- and accused governing elites of betraying them in practice. Through most of U.S. history, this brand of patriotism was indispensable to the cause of social change. It made the protests and rebellions of leftists comprehensible to their fellow citizens and helped inscribe those movements within a common national narrative.

Thomas Paine, born in England, praised his adopted homeland as an "asylum for mankind" -- which gave him a forum to denounce regressive taxes and propose free public education. Elizabeth Cady Stanton co-authored a "Declaration of Rights of Women" on the centennial of the Declaration of Independence and argued that denying the vote to women was a violation of the 14th Amendment. The Populists vowed to "restore the Government of the Republic to the hands of the 'plain people' with which class it originated" through such methods as an eight-hour day and nationalization of the railroads. In the 1930s, sit-down strikers proudly carried American flags into the auto plants they occupied and announced that they were battling for "industrial democracy." Twenty years later, Martin Luther King Jr. told his fellow bus boycotters, "If we are wrong -- the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong" and proclaimed that "the great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right."

One could list analogous statements from pioneering reformers such as Jane Addams and Betty Friedan, industrial unionists John L. Lewis and Cesar Chavez, and the gay liberationist Harvey Milk. Without patriotic appeals, the great social movements that weakened inequalities of class, gender and race in the United States -- and spread their message around the world -- never would have gotten off the ground.

A self-critical sense of patriotism also led activists on the left to oppose their nation's expansionist policies abroad. At the end of the 19th century, anti-imperialists opposed the conquest of the Philippines by invoking the words of Thomas Jefferson and comparing President William McKinley to King George III. Foes of U.S. intervention in World War I demanded to know why Americans should die to defend European monarchs and their colonies in Africa and Asia. When Martin Luther King spoke out against the Vietnam War, he explained simply, "I criticize America because I love her. I want her to stand as a moral example to the world."

It's difficult to think of any American radical or reformer who repudiated the national belief system and still had a major impact on U.S. politics and policy. The movement against the Vietnam War did include activists who preferred the Vietcong flag to the American one -- and a few star-spangled banners were actually torched. But the antiwar insurgency grew powerful only toward the end of the 1960s, when it drew in people who looked for leadership to such liberal patriots as King, Walter Reuther and Eugene McCarthy rather than to Abbie Hoffman and the Weathermen.

Since then, however, many on the left have viewed national ideals as fatally compromised by the racism of the founders and the jingoism of flag-waving conservatives. Noam Chomsky derisively describes patriotism as the governing elite's way of telling its subjects, "You shut up and be obedient, and I'll relentlessly advance my own interests." Protesters against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank echo Malcolm X's description of himself as a "victim of Americanism" who could see no "American dream," only "an American nightmare." For such activists, fierce love for one's identity group -- whether black, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay or lesbian -- often seems morally superior to devotion to a nation that long tolerated that group's exclusion or abuse.

Progressives have certainly had some cause to be wary of those who invoke patriotism. After World War II, "Americanism" seemed to become the property of the American Legion, the House Un-American Activities Committee and the FBI. In the 1960s, liberal presidents bullied their way into Indochina in the name of what Lyndon Johnson called "the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania." On the contemporary right, popular talk-show hosts routinely equate a principled opposition to war with a "hatred" for America.

Yet the left's cynical attitude toward Americanism has been a terrible mistake. Having abandoned their defense of national ideals, progressives also lost the ability to pose convincing alternatives for the nation as a whole. They could take credit for helping to reduce the sadism of our culture toward homosexuals and racial minorities. But the right set the political agenda, in part because its activists were willing to speak forcefully in the name of American principles that knit together disparate groups -- such as anti-union businessmen, white evangelicals and Jewish neo-conservatives -- for mutual ends.

When progressives abandoned that vision at the end of the '60s, they lost something precious and necessary. The left could no longer speak convincingly to individuals and groups who did not share its iconoclastic assumptions. The economic interests of many of those "Middle Americans" whom Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan lured to the GOP clashed with those of the pro-business right. But the left's grammar of protest, with its emphasis on rights for distinct and separate groups, failed to mobilize an aggrieved majority.

On the Mall last month, some protesters carried signs that read "Peace Is Patriotic." If the left hopes to become more than an occasional set of demonstrators and grow, once again, into a mass movement, it will have to build on that sentiment and elaborate the wisdom behind it.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the stakes have been raised. Even if war against terrorism and against Iraq doesn't continue to overshadow all other issues, it will inevitably force activists to clarify how they would achieve security, for individuals and the nation. How can one seriously engage in this conversation about protecting America if the nation holds no privileged place in one's heart? Without empathy for one's neighbors, politics becomes a cold, censorious enterprise indeed.

Progressives should again claim, without pretense or apology, an honorable place in the long tradition of those who demanded that American ideals apply to all and opposed the efforts of those, from whatever quarter, who tried to reserve them for privileged groups and ignoble causes. When the attorney general denies the right of counsel to a citizen accused of terrorism or a CEO cooks the books and fires workers who take him to task, they ought to be put on the defensive -- for acting in un-American ways. A left that scorns the very notion of patriotism is wasting a splendid opportunity to pose a serious alternative to the arrogant, blundering policies of the current administration and its political allies. Now, as throughout its history, the most effective way to love our country is to fight like hell to change it.

Michael Kazin teaches history at Georgetown University. His latest book, co-authored with Maurice Isserman, is "America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s" (Oxford University Press).



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[MGB8]

Ah yes...now a swede is threatening the US.

Whats funny is how Chirac got reprimanded for doing the EXACT same thing that he accuses the US of doing - taking the support of "smaller" nations for granted.

This is a power ploy by the French, and its going miserably. The best they will do is postpone the war by a couple weeks.

Iraq will not give up its weapons of mass destruction - it doesn't even admit that they exist! Even though we KNOW that they existed 11 years ago...but they magically disappeared, and Iraq would NEVER (sarcastic) try to make more, too!

Saddam is a terrible dictator. He is a huge oppressor of his own people. Iraqi's in the US say this. They talk about how torture is routine, not to mention killing of any disidents.

The fact that people DON'T want to end Saddam's rule casts THEIR moral compass into huge question. The fact that POST COLD WAR, France and Germany and Russia have dealt with this butcher (in contravension of UN Sanctions, btw) says a lot about those countries, as well.

[chrisjohn316]

I think the "peace" protestors are in effect support Saddam.

[j_stanford]

Originally posted by danholo
One of the speakers in London told that he wants to see inspectors in Israel (the crowd cheered loudly), the US and UK. I also call these people damn ignorant and stupid if they equate these three countries with Iraq.
at least these people are making their voices heard.

I agree. These countries have not violated UN resolutions or used weapons against their own people.

[judicial meanz]

Originally posted by Northlander
Ok, fine by me. Lets part once and for all then. I have nothing against living side by side with the US but no way Im going to accept that you use your troops whenever you like wherever you like. Then its for the best we are on the opposite side in all this.

Good luck in dealing with the rest of the world your ways.
Do expect to be challanged, politically, economically, and by some, with war and terrorism.

BTW. For you the protests doesnt matter. But I guarantee that it matters for Labour in Britain. Go to war, fine. But you will lose the next election Tony Blair. Its hell living in a democracy is it not?

Also, you have not seen the protests when the war starts.
Do not belive the rubbish about the whole european continent consisting of pacifists. As soon as Iraqi civilians starts to die by your troops many people will not stick to walking peacefully on the streets. Maybe you dont care personally but its stupid to pretend it doesnt affect you as a nation or people.


Its not about war or the prevention of war. Its more of an Anti-Jewish, anti-Israel movement.

The proof is here^ :D

[Northlander]

I agree. These countries have not violated UN resolutions or used weapons against their own people.

Wrong. Israel have violated hundreds of resolutions.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Northlander
Wrong. Israel have violated hundreds of resolutions.

You still don't get it, do you?

Each one of those terrorist apologist dehumanizing racist countries you support, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, etc., has 1 vote to cast in the UN as opposed to real countries like the US, UK, Israel, India, etc. (you know, democracies, like the ones where the actual people have a say). So, if you're cool with 60 votes coming from dictators, theocracies, monarchies, etc. and actually consider the UN as some sort of valid democratic body, you're completely lost.

[Northlander]

You are lost. Many of the resolutions were supported by democratic countries.

Also, democracy as you perfectly well know is no excuse for lousy foriegn politics. Would you resist less if Israel were attacked by a democratic country. "They have free elections so I guess they are right in attacking us". Dont think so.

There are also alot of different democratic systems. Israel has indeed an interesting system where it seems voting really can make a change. That is far from true in some other western countries. What it takes for "democratic" leaders in some countries is just enough money and pressure and "the majority" are behind them. Best system so far but not perfect. As we know from previous wars.

There are plenty of dictators out there but still somehow they dont seem to throw resolutions all over the place. You just see it as a problem when they are targeted against Israel.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by danholo
In London's Hyde Park, there was a big banner on the stage with "No War On Iraq" and below it "Freedom for Palestine".

What's the connection?


IMHO, the connection is obvious.
- Who pays $25k for each Pal suicidal shahid who blows up in Israel?
- Who launched 39 SCUDs onto Israel in hopes to get a response and ignite the religious war?
- Who dreams about the Israel's destruction?
- "Freedom for Palestine" as in Judenfrei. Who wants it from the river to the sea?
...

[muslimvoice]

may be these protesters should ask themselves,....lets see what do the Iraqi people think.

This is an article from an Iraqi


----------------------------------------------------------

This article about the anti-war movement is worth a read:

From: The Christian Science Monitor:
Commentary >Opinion
from the February 26, 2003 edition


If antiwar protesters succeed
To publish an unsigned opinion piece is an exception to the Monitor's policy. But the views expressed here, if put with a name, could endanger the writer's extended family in Baghdad. The author - known to Monitor staff - was born and raised in Iraq. Now a US citizen with a business that requires extensive world travel, the author is in frequent touch with the Iraqi diaspora but is not connected with organized opposition to Saddam Hussein.

Since Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, started warning that a US invasion of Iraq would "open the gates of hell," the retort that has been flying around Iraqi exiles' websites is, "Good! We'd like to get out!"


It got me wondering: What if you antiwar protesters and politicians succeed in stopping a US-led war to change the regime in Baghdad? What then will you do?

Will you also demonstrate and demand "peaceful" actions to cure the abysmal human rights violations of the Iraqi people under the rule of Saddam Hussein?

Or, will you simply forget about us Iraqis once you discredit George W. Bush?

Will you demand that the United Nations send human rights inspectors to Iraq? Or are you only interested in weapons of "mass destruction" inspections, not of "mass torture" practices?

Will you also insist that such human rights inspectors be given time to discover Hussein's secret prisons and coercion as you do for the weapons inspectors? Or will you simply accept a "clean bill of health" if you can't find the thousands of buried corpses?

Will you pressure your own countries to host millions more Iraqi refugees (estimated now at 4 million) fleeing Hussein's brutality?Or will you prefer they stay in bondage?

Will you vigorously demand an international tribunal to indict Hussein's regime for crimes against humanity? Or will you simply dismiss him as "another" dictator of a "sovereign" country?

Will you question why Hussein builds lavish palaces while his people are suffering? Or will you simply blame it all on UN sanctions and US "hegemony?"

Will you decry the hypocritical oil and arms commerce of France, Germany, Russia, and China with the butcher of Baghdad? Or are you only against US interests in Iraqi oil?

Will you expose ethnic cleansing of native Iraqi non-Arabs (Kurds, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkomens), non-Sunni-Muslims (Shiite), and non-Muslims (Christians, Mandaens, Yezidis)? Or are these not equivalent to the cleansing of Bosnians and Kosovars?

Will you show concern about the brutal silencing of the "Iraqi street"? Or are you only worried about the orchestrated noises of "Arab and Islamist streets" outside Iraq?

Will you hear the cries of Iraqis executed in acid tanks in Baghdad? the Iraqi women raped in front of their husbands and fathers to extract confessions? Or of children tortured in front of their parents? Or of families billed for the bullets used to execute military "deserters" in front of their own homes?

No. I suspect that most of you will simply retire to your cappucino cafes to brainstorm the next hot topic to protest, and that you will simply forget about us Iraqis, once you succeed in discrediting President Bush.

Please, prove me wrong.