London Protests!!!! General Discussion Thread

[Dreadsox]

STING...

Thank you for again taking the time to post the information. I do not know how you do it.



Peace

 

[verte76]

My main criticism of Bush is *how* he sold the case for the war against Saddam. He used the WMD argument, but I wish he'd used the human rights argument. He did this a little bit but put so much emphasis on the WMD deal that the human rights aspect of the campaign was definitely overshadowed when listening to the White House people. True, people on FYM were using the human rights issue, but I didn't start reading and posting on FYM until about two weeks before the war. Thus I *was* a bit out to lunch on the human rights aspect of the campaign. I knew Saddam was a but I didn't know how much of one; after all China and other countries have abominable human rights records also and we weren't going after them. I remember seeing the people shot in Tianenman Square in Beijing in 1989. Disgusting. I also have other criticisms of the Bush Administration's particular activities in post-war Iraq but I won't rehash them here, been there done that enough. Thus having criticisms of the Bush administration doesn't equal support of Saddam. I don't think anyone is implying this, I'm just putting myself on record as being from this school of thought.

 

[Scarletwine]

Andre Horbath, 80, London
I am against Bush and all his friends. He has got blood on his hands and is stirring up a lot of trouble. In my mind he is the world's most dangerous man - even Hitler only wanted to dominate Europe; this Bush wants to take on the whole world.

I came to this country in 1956 as a political refugee after the Hungarian revolution, and I've never felt the world situation was as dangerous as it is now. And that should be a warning to everybody.

Shamil Khan, 36, London
I had no choice but to come today because George Bush is simply the biggest terrorist in the world. Terror is about making people terrified, and raining bombs down on civilian populations - women and children - certainly achieves that.

George Bush has used terrible violence on innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just because these people happen to be Muslims or foreigners, or whatever, does not make it any less painful for them.

This is still terror, and Bush and Blair will have that on their consciences forever.

Sister Monica Williams, 62, Derby
I am unhappy about US actions in the world, I am unhappy about going to war and attacking civilians.

Ultimately, I am a person who believes things can be resolved without violence. I think that solutions largely come from within, from within a country or from within an individual - look at what happened with Nelson Mandela in South Africa. I think it's very important that people are given the chance and the support to solve their own problems.

I am very unhappy with Tony Blair, because I don't think he is always being honest about his motives. He was in a position to be a bridge between nations and he missed that opportunity - with dire consequences. I hope it's not too late to realise the mistakes they are making.

You can see today the strength of feeling, with the huge mix of background, ages, and religion that have come along to demonstrate their opposition. There are people from all walks of life, and that shows us that people are basically good and sensible.

Kath Fernand, 50, Essex
It's the devastation and misery in the Middle East that forced me to come today.

This has been caused by the man who is now an honoured guest in this country. Bush and his cronies in the multinationals are ravaging the region for profit. In my mind Bush is just a figurehead for his friends in big business, and this is all about the dollar.

There were no weapons of mass destruction, and human rights abuses are occurring in many countries around the world; so why did we go into Iraq?



The ridding of Sadaam Hussein is a good thing but I don't believe the 10,000 civilians deaths were worth our methods. After all Sadaam is only responsible for less than half that. The US and the UN are responsible for the rest.

And not to change the subject but I think the US is responsible for some large numbers of civilians in Cambodia and Nam, as seen by the Tiger massacres.

 

[wolfwill23]

Andre Horbath, 80, London
I am against Bush and all his friends. He has got blood on his hands and is stirring up a lot of trouble. In my mind he is the world's most dangerous man - even Hitler only wanted to dominate Europe; this Bush wants to take on the whole world.

I came to this country in 1956 as a political refugee after the Hungarian revolution, and I've never felt the world situation was as dangerous as it is now. And that should be a warning to everybody.

Shamil Khan, 36, London
I had no choice but to come today because George Bush is simply the biggest terrorist in the world. Terror is about making people terrified, and raining bombs down on civilian populations - women and children - certainly achieves that.

George Bush has used terrible violence on innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just because these people happen to be Muslims or foreigners, or whatever, does not make it any less painful for them.

This is still terror, and Bush and Blair will have that on their consciences forever.

Sister Monica Williams, 62, Derby
I am unhappy about US actions in the world, I am unhappy about going to war and attacking civilians.

Ultimately, I am a person who believes things can be resolved without violence. I think that solutions largely come from within, from within a country or from within an individual - look at what happened with Nelson Mandela in South Africa. I think it's very important that people are given the chance and the support to solve their own problems.

I am very unhappy with Tony Blair, because I don't think he is always being honest about his motives. He was in a position to be a bridge between nations and he missed that opportunity - with dire consequences. I hope it's not too late to realise the mistakes they are making.

You can see today the strength of feeling, with the huge mix of background, ages, and religion that have come along to demonstrate their opposition. There are people from all walks of life, and that shows us that people are basically good and sensible.

Kath Fernand, 50, Essex
It's the devastation and misery in the Middle East that forced me to come today.

This has been caused by the man who is now an honoured guest in this country. Bush and his cronies in the multinationals are ravaging the region for profit. In my mind Bush is just a figurehead for his friends in big business, and this is all about the dollar.

There were no weapons of mass destruction, and human rights abuses are occurring in many countries around the world; so why did we go into Iraq?

You know what they say about opinions...

The ridding of Sadaam Hussein is a good thing but I don't believe the 10,000 civilians deaths were worth our methods. After all Sadaam is only responsible for less than half that. The US and the UN are responsible for the rest.

So the US and the UN forced Saddam not to comply with the resolutions? We forced him to not hold up to a peace treaty that he signed? Please. Don't blame the US and the UN for the years of sanctions against Iraq. That was nobody's doing but Saddam's.

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,


"The ridding of Sadaam Hussein is a good thing but I don't believe the 10,000 civilians deaths were worth our methods. After all Sadaam is only responsible for less than half that. The US and the UN are responsible for the rest."

#1. The figure of 10,000 Civilian deaths is widely disputed. Even Iraqi Government figures which are likely to be inflated only amounted to 1,500. Compare that to the number of Iraqi Civilians that die every year under Saddam's rule which brings me to my next point.

#2 If you think Saddam has only murdered 5,000 people, I would say you are grossely misinformed. The most conservative estimate I have come up with is 1.7 million people that he has killed. This comes from his ruling of Iraq for 25 years, and the multipe wars that he started.
#3 The US and UN are not responsible for any of the lives that have been lost. Everything the USA had done in regards to Security in the region has saved far more lives than it has taken.

#4 Certain individuals may have done wrong things in Vietnam, but it was not US policy to murder civilians.

#5 I have yet to see anyone from the Anti-War movement talk about the cost to the Iraqi people of not removing Saddam Hussien. Nor have I seen any of them explain in detail about how Saddam could be removed without military force.

 

[Scarletwine]

YES I DO.

They were the first sanctions that were deemed to have a direct effect on civilians in any country. Yes I blame a Rep and Dem administration for them. I especiallt hate M Albright's qqoute about 500,000 death as worth it. Give me a break.

There were better ways of going about it than withholding medical supplies. Look, I don't NOT think Sadaam made it worse but I feel our duty should have been to help the humanitarian situation then instead of allowing it like we have done in the Congo, SA, Mosambeque(?). ect.

I think the US needs to get off its fd high horse and really work for relief regardless of politics. WWJD?

 

[nbcrusader]

With all the focus on Bush, it seems the protestors have very little to say about the crackpots who showed up in Istanbul.

 

[Sherry Darling]

I think the US needs to get off its fd high horse and really work for relief regardless of politics. WWJD?

Both you and Sting have some valid points, and I agree that UN sanctions are just not effective.

However, the more I study international conflict resolution, SW, the more I see how impossible separating politics and relief. Read up on Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia sometime if you get the chance, or a study of NGOs in confilct. Relief and politics can't be separated in many (happily not all) cases because all too often government or NGO supplies have ended up FUELING the conflict, fueling a war economy, rather than actually being able to provide aid. Aid gets stolen, or used politically by the elite, or allows the government to have more resources to buy weapons.

It's a situation and a heart-wrenchingly tough call for a lot of leaders. Do you help the innocent victims of war or do you hold back, in the hopes that lives will be saved by the conflict burning out sooner, for lack of oxygen?



sd

 

[verte76]

With all the focus on Bush, it seems the protestors have very little to say about the crackpots who showed up in Istanbul.

I would go to a demonstration protesting the Istanbul bombings in a heartbeat. I am quite literally sickened by these atrocities.

 

[STING2]

The Bosnian conflict was able to be solved once the United States was willing to take swift and strong military action. Sanctions against Iraq were effective in that they prevented Iraq from selling its vast oil reserves to purchase brand new conventional weapons systems. Still the Black Market was growing and Saddam had about 4 Billion dollars a year from blackmarket sales of oil to work with. Sanctions were falling apart and were really only effective as a military embargo and controlling the sale of Iraqi Oil abroad.

Its true that humanitarian aid can get intercepted by the powers that control a given area, and the people suffer. Thats precisely what happened in Iraq and the intercepter and controller was SADDAM. That problem has now been removed!

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

All of a sudden we have people quoting sources that were debated months (years) ago. Sources that were countered by Sting, myself and others with equally valid sources and facts and figures.

....

Sting, myself, and others have done enough searching and posting countering exactly some of the SAME rhetoric posted in here today that was posted in here a year ago.

Yes, we've had the debate about the impact of sanctions on Iraq. However I don't know where you get the idea that this debate was "won" by the yourself, Sting and other posters who claim sanctions only hurt the Iraqi people because Saddam wanted them to.

I'm still of the opinion that Denis Halliday and the other UN personnel responsible for the implementation of sanctions were correct when they drew attention to the devastating impact of sanctions on people throughout Iraq. I'm still appalled by reports from Iraq showing people dying terrible, painful deaths because doctors didn't have the means to treat them, and couldn't even offer them medication to relieve their suffering. I still believe it was unforgivable to allow thousands of children to die every month in Iraq because of sanctions.

We'll probably never agree on this issue, Dread. But that doesn't mean that those of us who disagreed with sanctions shouldn't be able to post our views and the facts which support them when this issue is raised. Debates don't always have to end in one group "winning" the debate and never wanting the subject to be raised again. Just think how many debates we had and are still having on whether the US was justified in attacking Iraq.

 

[Dreadsox]

Nope....never said we were winning....but I quoted the man, who devised the system the UN was using to make their predictions, and he says that the method in which the data was gathered to make their predecitions would invalidate their results.

I am appalled at the reports of Iraqi's in Tikrit receiving medical equiptment from hospitals in other areas. I am appalled by the fact that medical supplies were being sold by Iraq on the black market while there were "reports from Iraq showing people dying terrible, painful deaths because doctors didn't have the means to treat them, and couldn't even offer them medication to relieve their suffering." I am appalled that supplies were distributed by Saddam to the areas that were loyoal to him.

I do not have it in me to continue to painstakingly type everything out that I did the last time we spoke of this. If you wish to IGNORE the way in which the UN gave Saddam control over the way food and medical supplies were distributed in Iraq that is your perogative. To DISMISS it as not being the main reason they were UNFAIR to me means that you are unwilling to look at the fact the the sanctions were being used as a tool by Saddam. A political tool to keep his people/population in line.

You are right, we will not agree on it.....but the fact is the sanctions are gone now. If you wish to use the UN numbers I am willing to bet that more peope are alive today because he was removed....

I am not going to retype everything I typed before. It is disappopinting that poeple would still continue to post half of the story. I have not said I won a debate. I can agree with you the sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people. I can be horrified about it. But I can also identify WHY.....and if the sanctions were imlimented by the UN throughout Iraq instead of by Saddam, I am willing to bet that they would not have devastated the Iraqi. people.

If Saddam had not raided the hospitals in the southern parts of Iraq, they would not have been missing supplies and equiptment. If Saddam had maintained the water supply and sanitation to areas in which people were not supportive of him, there would have been less death and suffering. However, he was busy building palaces ect.

Those who disagreed with the sanctions appear unwilling to look at the total picture. They would rather restate "Sanctions Kill" and blame the US or the UN, because it makes a nice slogan. The fact is there were MANY contributing factors. It is easier to use one piece, blame the US, than to have a rally that "Saddam used Sanctions to Kill", "Saddam allowed the sewers to fail" or "Saddam stole medical equiptment from hospitals".

It is easier to disreguard this and blame the US.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Dread, I don't get why this is such a big issue to you. We've had the debate, we don't agree. I could just as easily complain that yourself and other posters here have ignored what I and other posters who opposed sanctions have to say on this issue. We disagree - we can happily have the debate again if you wish, or we can agree to disagree. Either is cool with me - but please don't act as though I must be stupid or misinformed because I disagree with your views. Peace?

 

[Dreadsox]

I responded to your post. If you reread what I wrote...I agree the sanctions hurt people. Hard to say I have ignored it when I agree....

I never called you stupid, implied you were stupid, nor said you were misinformed. If you care to you can PM me on this, but do not put words into my mouth.

I have a right to respond here too...just as you said you have the right to post your views.

 

[wolfwill23]

I'm still appalled by reports from Iraq showing people dying terrible, painful deaths because doctors didn't have the means to treat them, and couldn't even offer them medication to relieve their suffering. I still believe it was unforgivable to allow thousands of children to die every month in Iraq because of sanctions.

Problem solved. Saddam is gone thus ending the sanctions you obviously didn't approve of. And he was removed through a war that you probably didn't approve of either.

As much as most liberals hate to admit it, Bush will be remembered as the president who TOOK ACTION (something the UN was not willing to do) and removed an evil dictator from power thus bringing peace and democracy to the nation of Iraq.

 

[Dreadsox]

Still waiting for the list of weapons that Rumsfeld supplied Iraq with since he was photographed with him it clearly shows he delivered weapons.

Peace

 

[STING2]

Nice post Dread.

Iraq was allowed to sell Billions of dollars worth of oil for humanitarian supplies every year. Something most countries in Africa can only dream of doing. The dollar amount that Iraq sold or could sell every year to buy humanitarian supplies was far more than what was required to take care of the basic needs of a population of 24 million.

It was Saddam's attempts to get rid of sanctions that created stories of suffering that often did not exist such as the baby coffins that would be paraded through Baghdad every week. It was later discovered that this was all a sham. No problem though, Saddam could easily create suffering for people in the Shia south in order to get pics to sell the idea of the "murderous sanctions".

What I find funny is that the very people who opposed sanctions were for sanctions prior to the first Gulf War. The chant on the streets in 1990/1991 was "Sanctions, Not War".

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]If you want to support war despite that then do so, but at least acknowledge what you're supporting. Acknowledge that in supporting an attack on Iraq you're saying you support 500,000 innocent people being injured, you're supporting 900,000 people beceoming refugees, you're supporting 3million people having too little food to survive. [/Q]

As I was searching for my post months ago I ran accross this dire prediction about the rammifications of the war. These were the UN figures that were posted.

Any comments as to the accuracy of the figures now?

 

[Scarletwine]

Of course there are no itemized lists but here are a couple of sources.
http://www.logosjournal.com/gendzier_iraq.pdf

http://www.uvpeaceandjustice.org/WMD_suppliers.html
USA
1 Honeywell (R, K)
2 Spectra Physics (K)
3 Semetex (R)
4 TI Coating (A, K)
5 Unisys (A, K)
6 Sperry Corp. (R, K)
7 Tektronix (R, A)
8 Rockwell (K)
9 Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10 Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11 Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K)
12 Dupont (A)
13 Eastman Kodak (R)
14 American Type Culture Collection (B)
15 Alcolac International (C)
16 Consarc (A)
17 Carl Zeiss - U.S (K)
18 Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19 Electronic Associates (R)
20 International Computer Systems (A, R, K)
21 Bechtel (K)
22 EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R)
23 Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24 Axel Electronics Inc. (A)
Zus?tzlich zu diesen 24 Firmen mit Stammsitz USA werden in dem irakischen R?stungsbericht knapp 50 Tochterfirmen ausl?ndischer Unternehmen aufgef?hrt, die ihre R?stungskooperation mit dem Irak von den USA aus betrieben. Au?erdem werden die Washingtoner Ministerien f?r Verteidigung, Energie, Handel und Landwirtschaft sowie die Atomwaffenlaboratorien Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos und Sandia als Zulieferer f?r Iraks R?stungsprogramme f?r A-, B- und C-Waffen sowie f?r Raketen benannt.
(Anu's translation) of the above:
"In addition to these 24 companies home-based in the USA are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US. Also designated as suppliers for Iraq's arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories."

...

USA CENSORS IRAQ REPORT
Germany and the other non-permanent members of the UN Security Council received only a truncated version of the weapons dossier. Data concerning foreign suppliers of Iraq are missing.

Geneva: The 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council--to which Germany will belong starting in January--have been withheld substantial parts of the Iraqi arms report. All information about the supplies from--and the support of--foreign companies, research labs and governments from the mid-1970's on, related to Iraqi arms programs, have been deleted. The 5 permanent Council members, the USA, Russia, China, France and Great Britain, are aware of this censorship. According to the German Press Agency DPA, it has reduced the 12,00 page report to only 3000 pages.

From information gathered from UN diplomats of 2 of these 5 countries taz learned that the censorship was agreed on primarily upon the urging of the United States. Among the 5 constant members of the Security Council it was the USA that stood out by giving the strongest support to Saddam Hussain's regime by arming it with the means of mass destruction.

The report gives us a complete overview of these supplies for the first time. In particular it names the 24 US companies and when and to whom in Iraq the supplies were delivered. And it makes clear how strongly the Reagan and the first Bush administrations supported the arming of Iraq, from 1980 up to the Gulf conflict of 1990/91. Substantial construction units for the Iraqi nuclear weapon and rocket programs were supplied with permission of the government in Washington. The poison Anthrax for the arming of Iraq with biological weapons stemmed from US laboratories. Iraqi military and armament experts were trained in the US and there received know-how having to do with their domestic arms programs.

According to the estimation of Susan Wright, a US arms-control expert from the University of Michigan, publication of this information would be "especially embarassing for the USA." It would "remind people in the USA of a very dark chapter, which the Bush administration would prefer to forget about." Whether the US had already struck out this information before it made copies for the other 4 permanent Council members continues to be unclear.

Author: Andreas Zumach

 

[Sherry Darling]

It's worth noting to that these figures would be easier to establish if the Pentagon and Tommy Franks "did bodycounts"

sd

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

Can you specifically name a weapon system that the USA supplied to Iraq during the 1980s. For example, the USA has supplied Saudi Arabia with every generation of US tanks from World War II to the present, from the M-48 Tank to the current M1A2 Tank( although this is minus the special armor that covers the front of the tank)

Yes there are dozens of multinational corporations that have supplied PARTS, COMPUTERS, and other SUPPLIES. Yes, Biological cultures from US labs did end up in Iraq as well as DOZENS of other countries. But the US labs did not weaponize the Anthrax and send it to Iraq. These items have DUEL uses and were not sent to support Iraq's war effort to defeat Iran.

Biological weapons have not been widely used on the battlefield and many studies have shown that for battlefield purposes that their effectivness is questionable. Anthrax's best use is as a terror weapon against a defenseless, stationary, unsuspecting, civilian population. It is not surprising that despite developing Anthrax into weaponized form, Iraq never used it against Iran on the battlefield, obviously because of the questionable usefullness in those conditions.

So please, I'd be interested if you could find a single combat weapon system the USA sold to Iraq in the 1980s?

The USA did sale combat weapon systems to IRAN in the 1970s, and later in the 1980s during the war, Iraq was able to capture some of this equipment from Iran. In any event, it represents a tiny fraction of Saddam's former arsonal.

When it comes to chemical weapons, Iraq had been making and producing such weapons since the early 1970s.

It is true that the US government did supply Trucks, Transport Helicopters, and various supplies that have duel uses.

But I have never seen the sale of US Combat Weapon System to Iraq. If you disagree, please name the Weapon System.