quote:Originally posted by ben: Must be kind of galling for the Righteous Million of Feb 03 to reflect that - for all the noise they made - in the end they had a lot less stamina and stomach for a ruck than a bunch of braying toffs protecting their pastime.
You're hardly comparing like with like though are you? George'n'Tony were going to go ahead with bombing the hell out of Iraq come what may, and the anti-war protestors were never the most cohesive bunch, whereas fox-hunting is a relatively simple issue and still pretty much up for grabs, to the extent that even if it is made illegal some hunts may still go ahead.
It's a lot easier to fight on a relatively small issue with what you believe to be a clear moral case than oppose something that was always morally ambiguous, has now happened and that you had little chance of influencing in the first place.
Posts: 1386
| IP: Logged
posted
the majority of the righteous million were (in the main) experienced enough to realise that violence does your cause no good. ie, if your object is peace, its best to be peaceful- which the february march which ben seems to disdain so much was. the minority of pro-hunters dropping decaying carcusses all over the place reminds us all that what they are fighting for is the right to kill living creatures for no reason. not very clever.
-------------------- EXETER- movement of Jah people. Posts: 2841
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Gail: It's a lot easier to fight on a relatively small issue with what you believe to be a clear moral case than oppose something that was always morally ambiguous, has now happened and that you had little chance of influencing in the first place.
I don't buy this at all. Where exactly did this "morally ambiguous" element creep in? The anti-war marchers carried placards warning of 500,000 children being killed - I don't recall much in the way of nuance in any of the chants.
Similarly, the "it was always going to happen" is pretty feeble. One might argue that, given the strength of backbench feeling, the size of the Labour majority and the lack of sympathy for hunting (to put it mildly) in the nation as a whole a hunt ban "was always going to happen anyway". If you believe a cause is worth fighting for, you continue in the face of daunting odds, don't you?
I think a comparison of the two movements is perfectly reasonable: issues that mobilised hundreds of thousands (most 'first time' protestors) into gigantic setpiece demonstrations, drawing in people from across the country and from a variety of backgrounds. The most striking differences are those of scale and the seriousness of the issue being protested. Both the latter ought to have given the anti-war cause a lot more in the way of stamina and commitment.
quote:Originally posted by ben: Where exactly did this "morally ambiguous" element creep in?
I imagine, Ben, that when you decided that the invasion of Iraq was a something that you supported, you came to this conclusion after some thought. That you realised innocent people would die, but in the end it would be for the greater good.
Do you suppose that anyone who was against the war didn't do that as well, but came to the conclusion that although innocent people were dying, an invasion wasn't going to improve the situation?
It's morally ambiguous because any way you look at it, whatever happened, Iraq was going to be, and remain for a long time to come, a mess. For all the faults in their arguments, the anti-war lobby wasn't just going around saying 'war is bad, mmkay?'.
quote:Similarly, the "it was always going to happen" is pretty feeble. One might argue that, given the strength of backbench feeling, the size of the Labour majority and the lack of sympathy for hunting (to put it mildly) in the nation as a whole a hunt ban "was always going to happen anyway". If you believe a cause is worth fighting for, you continue in the face of daunting odds, don't you?
But fox-hunting hasn't been banned yet, has it? The last attempt at banning was unsuccessful, and this one only appears sure to go through because the Government has fixed things so that the House of Lords cannot defeat the Bill. Even if/when the Bill becomes law, some hunters have declared their intentions to carry on.
The war in Iraq has happened, and as such the situation has changed radically. As a result of the invasion, what was left of Iraq's infrastructure has been largely destroyed and it has no cohesive government or public services.
Even if one was against the war in the first place, it is hard to argue that having gone in, the coalition shouldn't do its best to attempt to put the country back on its feet again, rather than depose Saddam, make sure there really were no WMD, then turn around and leave the Iraqis to their own devices, especially given the example of Afghanistan.
Opposing the occupation of Iraq is thus a completely different issue to opposing the invasion of Iraq, and that much harder given that the troops are already there.
quote:Originally posted by Gail: Do you suppose that anyone who was against the war didn't do that as well, but came to the conclusion that although innocent people were dying, an invasion wasn't going to improve the situation?
It's morally ambiguous because any way you look at it, whatever happened, Iraq was going to be, and remain for a long time to come, a mess. For all the faults in their arguments, the anti-war lobby wasn't just going around saying 'war is bad, mmkay?'.
Er, yes they were. I lost count of the times I saw placards, effigies or marchers decrying Blair and Bush as mass murdering war criminals with blood on their hands before any military action had even started. The head of self-righteous fury that was generated around the time of the march is undeniable. "500,000 kids will die" was the collective howl - and yet a week later all anyone seemed prepared to do was grumble into their chins.
If there was one thing the march seemed to have in abundance it was a belief in the rightness of their cause. But within a matter of days, mass mobilisation had petered into nothing.
It was as though a big section of the middle class had gone through a raucous session of primal scream therapy. I don't know. Maybe that has some benefits to it.
quote:Originally posted by Gail: But fox-hunting hasn't been banned yet, has it? The last attempt at banning was unsuccessful, and this one only appears sure to go through because the Government has fixed things so that the House of Lords cannot defeat the Bill. Even if/when the Bill becomes law, some hunters have declared their intentions to carry on.
The war in Iraq has happened, and as such the situation has changed radically. As a result of the invasion, what was left of Iraq's infrastructure has been largely destroyed and it has no cohesive government or public services. [...] Opposing the occupation of Iraq is thus a completely different issue to opposing the invasion of Iraq, and that much harder given that the troops are already there.
This is all hindsight - between the big march and beginning of hostilities more than a month passed during which anti-war protest seemed to collapse; even though there were two parliamentary votes that might have provided a focus for demonstrations. I'd argue that no government could have survived concerted and sustained protests by a million voters - let alone the two million the organisers of the march boasted they had on the day.
quote:Originally posted by ben: and yet a week later all anyone seemed prepared to do was grumble into their chins.
This line seemed to summarise the general feeling I was getting from the anti-war protesters. Like lethargic John Lennon fans who can't be arsed to even drop the stylus onto a dusty copy of Imagine. While I feel bad for making the connection between the two different campaigns, I was interested to read what others thought about what seem to be major decisions made on the backs of public opinion. Perhaps war widows should have dug up the corpses of their dead husbands and piled them on the steps of the houses of parliament. Medals, still attached to tuna-like decayed flesh.
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: [QUOTE]When it acts to prohibit something you agree should be prohibited, like smoking on public transport, you would see it as right-headed and acting in the majority interest
smoking on public transport has actually never caused a fire. eg: Kings x was the only reported fire on london underground in its entire history, which is why they took the fire extinguishers out as they were only ever used for vandalising purposes.
Printer-friendly view of this topic