Jonn, I hope you got my reply to your e-mail: something odd happened to my
computer when I tried to send it.


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?


In general I agree, but I was merely pointing out that, as might seem to be the
case, that if the Iraqis don't actually WANT our help to rebuild their country,
then it's not worth risking our soldiers' and charity workers' etc. lives to
force it on them.

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.

I rather think the exemplary conduct of Her Majesty's forces did a better job
of showing the Iraqis (and the wider World) that we were not just involved in
Iraq to get something out of it (which seems to be the suggestion about and
criticism of the Americans - which I do not accept, but I do accept H.M. forces
are far better at this sort of activity than the Americans).


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.

A few thousand, or even 100,000, or even a million demonstrators is by no
stretch of the imagination "the mass of the British people".

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.

I rather doubt that the suicide bombers and terrorists of the World will give a
fig about demonstrators in London showing what jolly good chaps the Brits are
and that we therefore ought to be excluded from their next terror campaign.

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.


Again, I agree that morally we have a duty to finish what we started, but not
if the cost is many British deaths. Legally, in England, you owe a duty of care
to someone only if you act, i.e. if you see someone drowning, there is no legal
duty to try and save him, and certainly not it will risk drowning you both.

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.

What I meant was, I suspect that the right-thinking people amongst the
demonstrators would take the view that you have expressed: we have a duty to
carry on with what we started, albeit they did not think we should have started
it in the first place.


I think you'll find that peaceful protesting is entirely lawful too

It is lawful, which is why the Police have said it will be allowed - but that
is not to say it is right, and I do not think any demonstration that affects
others' daily lives should be lawful.

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.

It is not illegal, but an impertinence by people who seemingly have nothing
better to do with their time or money than disrupt the lives of those of us who
work and pay taxes to finance those very people.

Although I still think it's a dangerous precedent
to set - to remove an unpleasant government _before_ it can be aggressive.

A few million Jews and others might have been spared if pre-emptive action had
been taken against Hitler.

I omitted to reply to your interesting previous comment about being grateful to
the Americans for World War Two help, but that not meaning they should be
exempt from criticism now. Of course, that is right, but I was simply making
the point, against all the America-haters, that generally speaking America has
been a good ally of this Country and more often than not, a force for good in
the World. Just my opinion.

Marc.

Anyone here know who is organising the march?
I am serioulsy consdiering billing them because thier
actions have meant I have had to cancel a planned trip
with all the resulting problems that causes.

I am seriously consdering sending the organisers of
the march a bill for my time and inconvenience.

Perhaps some of the long suffering commuters, earners and
vistors to the capital should also bill the organisers,
who from what I have heard seem to be unwilling to consider
that others have a right to earn a living or enjoy london
in 'peace'.







Find me an actionable defendant, with sufficient funds to satisfy a judgement
and costs, and I will draft the pleadings for you free of charge!

Marc.

Jonn Elledge wrote:

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.

....or as we used to say in motorsport, "you bend it, you mend it" :-)

On 14 Nov 2003 00:23:45 GMT, (Mait001) wrote:

A few thousand, or even 100,000, or even a million demonstrators is by no
stretch of the imagination "the mass of the British people".

If everyone who opposed the war turned up in london to protest, what
you'd essentially have is an uprising. I believe the polls currently
stand at a majority opposed. Not quite the isolated group of lefties
you like to portray the oppsers of war as. For feelings to run this
strong despite what the government and some media outlets would like
is pretty indicative of deeply held convictions, IMO.


It is not illegal, but an impertinence by people who seemingly have nothing
better to do with their time or money than disrupt the lives of those of us who
work and pay taxes to finance those very people.

An impertinence? Thank god for those "impertinent" people who have the
temerity to speak out for what they believe is right. I suppose Rosa
Parks, the suffragettes, etc were also impertinent?

Anyway this is all OT. See you in london.

A few thousand, or even 100,000, or even a million demonstrators is by no
stretch of the imagination "the mass of the British people".

If everyone who opposed the war turned up in london to protest, what
you'd essentially have is an uprising. I believe the polls currently
stand at a majority opposed. Not quite the isolated group of lefties
you like to portray the oppsers of war as. For feelings to run this
strong despite what the government and some media outlets would like
is pretty indicative of deeply held convictions, IMO.

We'll just have to disagree on that: just because a few opinion polls suggest a
majority of those interviewed "oppose the war" - which I do not believe to be
the case anyway (what are the statistics and polls to which you refer?) does
not mean that they all feel so strongly about it that they wish to disrupt the
lives of ordinary people trying to go about their normal business in London.

And, don't believe everything the pro-Saddam (the prime culprit being the
B.B.C.) media tells you.

It is not illegal, but an impertinence by people who seemingly have nothing
better to do with their time or money than disrupt the lives of those of us
who
work and pay taxes to finance those very people.

An impertinence? Thank god for those "impertinent" people who have the
temerity to speak out for what they believe is right. I suppose Rosa
Parks, the suffragettes, etc were also impertinent?


I do not distinguish what the cause is: I take grave exception to the European
Union and wish it (as a concept) nothing but harm and distress, but I would not
even take these deeply-held beliefs to such an extent that I would impose
inconvenience on Londoners by disrupting their activities just to show my
strength of feeling.


Anyway this is all OT. See you in london.



Not if I can help it!

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
Jonn, I hope you got my reply to your e-mail: something odd happened to my
computer when I tried to send it.


I got it, don't worry...


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?


In general I agree, but I was merely pointing out that, as might seem to
be the
case, that if the Iraqis don't actually WANT our help to rebuild their
country,
then it's not worth risking our soldiers' and charity workers' etc. lives
to
force it on them.

On Wednesday I heard a BBC journalist who spent the summer in Iraq make a
speech. He said that he thinks that a large portion of the Iraqis he met
were still grateful that Saddam's been removed. I think it would be
irresponsible to let a terrorist minority get between the coalition and its
duty to rebuild what it helped to destroy.

I was fairly suspicious of the war, if not actively against it, but now
we're there I think we should stay put until Iraq is a democracy. And
certainly at least until we've fixed the water and the electricity!


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.

I rather think the exemplary conduct of Her Majesty's forces did a better
job
of showing the Iraqis (and the wider World) that we were not just involved
in
Iraq to get something out of it

I never really thought we were only there to get something out of it - I
think Blair wanted to go to war because he honestly believed there were
WMDs. I also believe he was mistaken about that. But anyway, back to the mai
n point...

I think it's paradoxically good PR for the government to have had the
protests taking place. They remind the world that one of the key things
about Western democracy - somethign Iraq has been deprived of - is free
speech (not to mention free assembly). I agree this would have been rendered
meaningless if the army had gone in there and screwed up, so you're right
that their conduct was key. (It was a hell of a lot better than the US
Army's - I mean, junior officers draping the Stars and Stripes over toppled
statues? Please).

(which seems to be the suggestion about and
criticism of the Americans - which I do not accept, but I do accept H.M.
forces
are far better at this sort of activity than the Americans).

Agreed.



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.

A few thousand, or even 100,000, or even a million demonstrators is by no
stretch of the imagination "the mass of the British people".


You don't get that many people turning out for a protest unless many more
agree with them, simply because most people (and I'm ashamed to admit I'm
one of them) never get off their backsides to do something so actively. They
may not represent a majority, but they certainly represent a significant
minority.

Apart from anything, polls released today show that the majority in Britain
is against Bush and his handling of Iraq.


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.

I rather doubt that the suicide bombers and terrorists of the World will
give a
fig about demonstrators in London showing what jolly good chaps the Brits
are
and that we therefore ought to be excluded from their next terror
campaign.

But people don't just become terrorists at random. They do it in reaction to
what they perceive as injustices, however warped their perceptions may be.
Some of the root causes of terrorism are in the perception of Western
foreign policy.

So while I agree that Al-Quieda isn't going to back off when they see that
the British people are nice chaps really, I believe that protests could make
people think twice about joining the terrorists.


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.


Again, I agree that morally we have a duty to finish what we started, but
not
if the cost is many British deaths. Legally, in England, you owe a duty of
care
to someone only if you act, i.e. if you see someone drowning, there is no
legal
duty to try and save him, and certainly not it will risk drowning you
both.

Yes, but what if you pushed them in in the first place?

I think you'll find that peaceful protesting is entirely lawful too

It is lawful, which is why the Police have said it will be allowed - but
that
is not to say it is right, and I do not think any demonstration that
affects
others' daily lives should be lawful.


There we're just going to have to disagree. I'd rather live in a state that
allowed protests than one that didn't, because it's a reminder of popular
freedoms, and proof that we're not living in a police state.



Although I still think it's a dangerous precedent
to set - to remove an unpleasant government _before_ it can be
aggressive.

A few million Jews and others might have been spared if pre-emptive action
had
been taken against Hitler.


Point taken, although I'm not sure the situations were entirely comparable
because of the much more limited range of Saddam's influence.

I omitted to reply to your interesting previous comment about being
grateful to
the Americans for World War Two help, but that not meaning they should be
exempt from criticism now. Of course, that is right, but I was simply
making
the point, against all the America-haters, that generally speaking America
has
been a good ally of this Country and more often than not, a force for good
in
the World. Just my opinion.

I think that, like most countries, the US has done some great things. It's
also done some pretty appalling things - sanctions on Cuba, the bombing of a
Sudanese facility manufacturing medicine to protect US patents, the removal
of an elected government in Chile in 1973.

It's also given the world some great things - not least the ideas explicitly
laid down in its constitution.

The risk is that people get so bogged down in the ideals of America -
freedom, justice, democracy - that they forget that its actions sometimes go
against what it is supposed to stand for.

I don't hate America. I think it's one of the most fascinating countries on
Earth, and has at times been a fantastic force for good.

But it's vital that we never stp questioning and scrutinising it - or any
other state, company or idea, come to that. That's what democratic public
debate should be all about.

Jonn

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
A few thousand, or even 100,000, or even a million demonstrators is by no
stretch of the imagination "the mass of the British people".

If everyone who opposed the war turned up in london to protest, what
you'd essentially have is an uprising. I believe the polls currently
stand at a majority opposed. Not quite the isolated group of lefties
you like to portray the oppsers of war as. For feelings to run this
strong despite what the government and some media outlets would like
is pretty indicative of deeply held convictions, IMO.

We'll just have to disagree on that: just because a few opinion polls
suggest a
majority of those interviewed "oppose the war" - which I do not believe to
be
the case anyway (what are the statistics and polls to which you refer?)

There are some at the bottom of this article in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...on/7248104.htm


And, don't believe everything the pro-Saddam (the prime culprit being the
B.B.C.) media tells you.

Please don't reduce the level of argument to "everyone who opposes the war
is pro-Saddam". It's reductive, it's inaccurate, and you can (and have) come
up with better arguments.

An impertinence? Thank god for those "impertinent" people who have the
temerity to speak out for what they believe is right. I suppose Rosa
Parks, the suffragettes, etc were also impertinent?


I do not distinguish what the cause is: I take grave exception to the
European
Union and wish it (as a concept) nothing but harm and distress, but I
would not
even take these deeply-held beliefs to such an extent that I would impose
inconvenience on Londoners by disrupting their activities just to show my
strength of feeling.

That's your democratic right to feel that way. Others choose to exercise
their rights in different ways, such as through peaceful* protest. I'm sorry
that you feel inconvenienced, but as I've stated before I'd rather live in a
society that allowed such shows of popular feeling than one that repressed
them - such as Saddam's Iraq...

Jonn

*I am aware of how ridiculous I'm going to look if troublemakers at the
protest attempt to firebomb Bush or something...

On 13 Nov 2003 14:50:41 GMT, (Mait001) wrote:

The fetaured link states:-

" March to Trafalgar Square where a statue of George Bush will be pulled down.
This event will continue until 7pm to allow for people coming from work.
If there is only one STOP BU$H event that you can make - this is the one."

Presumably these vile and odious morons actually believe George Bush is more
evil than Saddam.



I wonder what the bus diversions will be?

(to get this on track)
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

"Pleadings"?
Are you a bloody yank?

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
Anyone here know who is organising the march?
I am serioulsy consdiering billing them because thier
actions have meant I have had to cancel a planned trip
with all the resulting problems that causes.

I am seriously consdering sending the organisers of
the march a bill for my time and inconvenience.

Perhaps some of the long suffering commuters, earners and
vistors to the capital should also bill the organisers,
who from what I have heard seem to be unwilling to consider
that others have a right to earn a living or enjoy london
in 'peace'.







Find me an actionable defendant, with sufficient funds to satisfy a
judgement
and costs, and I will draft the pleadings for you free of charge!

Marc.

On 13 Nov 2003 18:04:39 GMT, (Mait001) wrote:

Jonn, I appreciate the senitments you express, but I would suggest that the
vast majority of those who demonstrate next week, and did so on the previous
marches, are the usual anti-capitalist rent-a-demo anarchists who despise
America for a number of disparate reasons, and would demonstrate against Bush
even if he'd just found a painless cure for World poverty.

Adequate proof that you didn't witness the 1 million-strong demo a few
months back. The snobbishly-worded stereotupes you describe made up a
tiny fraction of those in attendence, the vast majority of whom
covered all aspects of the social and political spectrum. Looking at
the country as a whole, it's clearly bitter Bush-apologists like you
who are the marginalised minority.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk