"Mait001" wrote in message
...

I'm not quite sure what "war" they are against actually. If they simply
want
American and British (and the poor Italians) to leave Iraq immediately, I
wouldn't actually be against that: the life of one British soldier is
worth
more to me than all the Iraquis they are actually helping.

Why should an Iraqi life - not that of a Ba'ath party member, but an
ordinary person, a doctor say - be worth less than that of a British
soldier?

The protests during the war did an important job in demonstrating to the
world that, despite how it may sometimes appear, the UK does not risk Arab
lives lightly. They helped ensure that the country did not appear to be a
hawkish monolith to be feared; they reminded the world that British people
can still give a damn about the well-being of other nations.

The protests next week will do a similar thing in demonstrating to the US
government, and others, that while Blair may be solidly with Bush, the mass
of the British people aren't. If it looked like noone cared, it would make
it easier for terrorist groups to demonize the British people as
bloodthirsty warmongers. Protests can show the world that that's now true.


If they are not
welcome, bring them home - I am content that the htreat posed by Saddam is
gone. It will be a long time before Iraq is a threat to World security
again.

I agree, but now we've invaded the place it's our duty to rebuild it as
well. You broke it, you bought it, I think the phrase is.


But I don't actually think they do want the soldiers to come home - I
doubt if
they give 2 figs about British, American or Italian soldiers.

I'd be surprised if you were right, but I don't think either of us can speak
authoritatively on that one.

They are just
using this as an excuse to vaunt their hatred of Bush, America and
whatever
else they dislike.

To an extent - the first of those three certainly. But as I said earlier...


Protest is a part of a healthy democracy.


I stand by that. In a way, it applies to all governments. Do you think
people would remember what happened to dissenters in China without Tiannaman
Square?

I do not agree with ANY protest that disrupts the lives of ordinary people
going about their lawful business.

I think you'll find that peaceful protesting is entirely lawful too, though
given the abysmal lack of codefied civil rights in this country I'm quite
prepared for your legal training to tell me otherwise. At any rate, the
majority of any protesters aren't looking to do anything illegal - but to
protest against a man who has broken international law repeatedly over the
last three years.


but I'd much rather have seen the
President take the hint and cancel the visit

Actually, it was an idiotic decision of Blair to advise The Queen to
invite
Bush on this State Visit at this time. It would be discourteous (and an
unwarranted victory for the people about whom I have been writing) for
Bush to
cancel the visit now, but I agree that the invitation should not have been
given at this particular juncture.

I agree with you there too. I'll steer clear of constitutional issues, or we
really will get bogged down in this debate...


There's a quote about
"all that is required for evil to triumph" that seems aposite here, but I
can't remember for the life of me who said it.


I know the quote, can't remember who said it, but have used it myself on
several occasions, to justify the war in Iraq!

I looked it up, it's Burke. I take your point on using it to justify the
war, though - my objections were more about the way it was handled than the
idea of removing Saddam. Although I still think it's a dangerous precedent
to set - to remove an unpleasant government _before_ it can be aggressive.

Jonn