Sorry to be so disruptive of the groupthink

I do sympathise with your feelings, Caroma; so far in this discussion your view of current events hasn't been shared by most of the other people who have entered the conversation, and I know that must feel uncomfortable and perhaps frustrating.

For what it's worth, though, I'm very rarely in Natter and most of my conversations around here have been to do with fan fic or glitter or mememe stuff, rather than politics. Please don't devalue my opinions by suggesting that I'm just trying to fit in with some standardised Buffista worldview. I am acutely aware of the fact that I'm not an expert on politics, and I am prepared to question my own assumptions as well as those of others. If you are sufficiently interested in the discussion to engage with my points and show me that my understanding is flawed (as it may well be), then fair enough. I'm assuming that you have reasons for your views, and so I'm treating them seriously. If that isn't the case - if you're just making throw-away comments to be provocative, without caring one way or another about their accuracy, then tell me. Sometimes I don’t realise that people are joking, with this medium. I understood that you were serious.

Now, since I'm rarely in Natter I can't speak for the instance you cited. "Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children" is, I sincerely trust, an exaggeration of the numbers of children that we're going to kill. So if you're pissed off about that exaggeration being allowed to pass, when a similar exaggeration that was pro-war probably wouldn't have been allowed to pass, then I can see why you'd feel irked. I don't agree with your take on this, but I can see why this could rankle. But, you know, we *are* already causing the deaths and injuries of civilians some of whom will be children. Even if it transpires that the market bombing was down to Iraqis - and, based on our past record with bombing the wrong bloody places time and again with our 'Smart' technology (and based on how many of our own soldiers have already been killed in "friendly fire" in this war, not to mention the fact that the Pentagon admits at least seven of its Tomahawks haven't hit their intended targets) I'm not very optimistic that we can pass the buck for this, but one lives in hope - still these attacks are the direct result of our presence. Perhaps whoever it was in Natter should just have bewailed the "unknown number" of innocent Iraqi children we were going to kill - but the underlying sentiment there is surely "our actions will cause the death of innocent people. Probably a lot of innocent people. This seems to me to be A Very Bad Thing." Perhaps this is too sentimental for your taste, and somebody should have responded with a post explaining why it would be worth inadvertently killing X many innocent people for the (presumed) greater good of the Iraqi population as a whole. But I can't agree that the statement was ludicrous, even if it was an exaggeration.

Did anybody laugh or ask her how long she'd been working for the Saudi media, or tell her to get psychiatric help…

Okay - my grasp of international affairs is patchy, I willingly admit. My understanding was that Saudi Arabia was pretty much allied with the US on most things. I mean, certainly that's part of the reason Bin Laden and co are so angry, as I understood it - because Saudi Arabia (which has a lousy human rights record itself) has a close and co-operative relationship with the US, largely based upon oil trade. The Saudis were key members of the allied coalition that expelled Iraq from Kuwait back in '92. Within the context of the Middle East, my understanding was that they're about as pro-US as it gets.

…or even say what exactly led her to believe that the military of three very civilized countries was too evil or dumb not to target children in the first place?

Just because our soldiers don't go out there specifically looking for innocent people to bomb instead of soldiers, we can't say "well, it's not *our* fault that we killed innocent people. How could we know? What the hell were they doing there?" That's impossibly disingenuous. We're bombing the places where people live. I do think that we have to accept responsibility for the fact that our bombs are killing, and will continue to kill, innocent people. Some people will weigh up the pros and the cons and decide that it's worth it. Some people will weigh up the pros and cons and decide that it isn't. But I don't think this means that they need psychiatric help.

There's a few people, like Cindy and Wolfram and Gar and Victor, who try to steer the conversation from the endless rounds of Bush-bashing. And thank God for that.

Respectfully, I'd suggest that you re-read this discussion, because there has been very little mention of Bush. I'm not interested in personally bashing Bush or Blair.

But people, relax, chill, Bush might be gone in 22 months!

As I said, I balk at accepting that he's anything like as stupid as he's portrayed in the media, and I also balk at accepting that any one person has the power to make *serious* world-altering decisions without input from a shedload of advisors. I'm working on the assumption that both US and UK policies do have something deeper than machismo motivating them, and that decisions to wage war aren't taken lightly. I'm not persuaded that these decisions have been taken for morally viable reasons, and I'm scared stiff of the long term effects, but I'm not putting it down to stupidity or evil.

edited for clarity.

But whether it's Bush in power in 22 months or Jo(e) RandomAmerican (ditto Blair, whose career is on the line with this) we're still going to have created some serious problems - because quite apart from the enormous bill we'll have at the end of the day, the way things are shaping up, more and more people are going to start thinking that terrorism is the only viable response to what they perceive (not entirely without reason) as brutal and ruthless western imperialism. We're making ourselves look like the bad guys here.

Terrorism is something I'm very keen on not encouraging. The limited exposure I've had to terrorism (frequent bombthreats on the London Underground, a carbomb going off outside my local pub only hours after I'd been sitting very much in range, bomb-making factory found in a house only streets away from mine etc etc) pretty much reinforce this feeling. But bombing Ireland to pieces (leaving aside the absolute injustice of any such tactic) was never going to be a successful way of discouraging terrorism. Similarly, bombing the Middle East is not going to win a "War on Terror". It's going to create terrorists, and it's going to alienate our allies. If people are willing to die in order to hurt you, then it doesn't matter how strong you are. We can't apply 19th Century ideas about warfare to the 21st Century world.

Burning bridges is a really, really bad idea - but it's something that the US appears, at least from the outside, to be fairly unconcerned about. But, like it or lump it, it's a Global economy we're all living in and we *need* the rest of the world - both to buy our stuff and to sell us stuff. We can't just say "Screw You" to everyone.

Evil Jimi - Excellent post.

Cindy - We're buggered. I can't see any viable way of withdrawing from this war, even if we wanted to, because of the tremendous loss of face both at home and abroad. I don't pretend to know how things are going to unfold, but everything I can see suggests that the repercussions are going to be bad, and that we need to be doing our damnedest to look to what we can build once it's all over, and how we can keep this from poisoning our relations with other countries throughout the Middle East and throughout the rest of the world.

edited for clarity

Caroma, don't think that your opinions aren't listened to, they are. In fact you seem to be able to see some of the complexities of the current world situation at a far deeper level than just war/US/Bush bad vs peace/everyone else good. Some of the points that you raise really are at the heart of the matter...

Of course they're being "selfish"--it's called trying to make money for their workers and shareholders.

Yes. In a corporatised shareholder driven economy profit comes before morals.

Most of our Congress came from the private sector, and that's what we want, instead of the professional polticians. And as more and more rich guys like Bloomberg get into politics, it's going to get stickier and stickier. The ties will just multiply.

Again yes. Corporate sponsored politics, the triumvirate of government, industry, and the military. We have allowed the situation to develop where it is very difficult, if not impossible, to fix many of the problems of the world without a complete overhaul of many parts of the system. In times gone by this usually required a bloody revolution.

But people, relax, chill, Bush might be gone in 22 months!

But what does this do about the anti-US sentiment that has been fermenting for years and appears to be exploding around the world art the moment. It is not really anti-Bushism it is anti-American imperialism. And IIRC the current figures are that 93 countries have ratified the Kyoto ptotocol.

Evil Jim that was a great article, you're right it sums it all up pretty well.

And Fay, seeing that you've mentioned that you rarely go to Natter I've taken the liberty of reposting something that I posted in Natter last night but that really followed on from the discussion in here.

Repost....As I was sitting here contemplating the discussion that has been taking place over in unamerican and elsewhere I noticed that the nightly news had begun. There were the usual war stories, clips of Bush/Blair/Howard, footage of the conflict, snippets of press briefings, and suicide bombing, then a story on the on-going protests against this war as they are reverberating around the world. Australia, Europe, America, then OMG CHINA, did I just hear right, they are allowing protests in China.

China has seen its first open protests against the Iraqi war, but limited the numbers allowed to demonstrate, fearing activists might become emboldened to take on issues nearer home. Small groups gathered in different parts of Beijing to protest - one saw about 200 foreign nationals march past the US ambassador's residence.

where organisers claimed more than three million showed up. The organisers, the Indonesian Solidarity Committee for Iraqi People, said about one million protesters were expected to attend the rally in the world’s largest Muslim-populated nation.

Then the story moved to India, millions more protesting and a government that hasn't been sure which side to claim to be on, Dear God we KNOW that they have nukes.

Then the story moved to the Middle East. Standard protests in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey etc. And then Bethlehem.

Hundreds of Palestinian children protest for peace. Footage of this sea of childrens faces, not half-wrapped in dirty urban guerilla style cloths, but laughing, singing, chanting, and looking like any of the other children's protests that have occurred in the last few weeks, except perhaps younger. Tears came to my eyes as I thought of protests in China and Palestinian children filmed doing something other than fighting, attending funerals, or just looking downright miserable and tragic.

Then an Israeli jeep drove into the protest area, rocks were thrown, shots were fired, things began to get ugly, but then the jeep retreated out of the area. The children got back to the business at hand, went back to chanting for peace, and then more Israeli jeeps arrived, driving right into the protest area and firing live weapons and stun grenades(?), their given reason - to stop criticism of the US. Basically, chaos ensued. Terrified children screaming and running. I know that the media manipulate images for various purposes but the fact that children looking no older than 7 or 8 are having to be tended by the Red Crescent is just wrong.

I broke.

Dear Deity of your choice, what have we let loose? I feel that the aftereffects of this war are going to be horrendous. I hope with all my heart that I am wrong.

Dammit, I deleted my post.

A mate sent an ICQ msg about the Halliburton bullshit and said Cheney is, "still receiving deferred compensation from them".

It was mentioned in a few articles about the deal that he does or will recieve money from them. I think it's a set amount and I can't remember how much.

Then again, what is the direct purpose of a protest? It's not necessarily to cause immediate cessation of the protestable activity; but to register displeasure with it in a public, numerous way.

That's why I protest. Not to actually bring things to an immediate halt, but to make my voice heard. I want to be sure that when they announce how many people are for and against, I'm being counted as being against.

Of course they're being "selfish"--it's called trying to make money for their workers and shareholders.

Their actions aren't always in the interests of shareholders and workers. If that were the case we wouldn't have these huge corporate scandals with shareholders and workers getting the shaft.

Moonlit - thanks for re-posting that. It's depressing as hell, but, yes, please t deity of choice let us find a way to ameliorate the repercussions of this war.

That's the reason I protest. Not so much for an immediate ceassation, but to register my displeasure and make my voice heard. When they show the stats on for and against, I want mine counted as against

Fair play to you. I'm very aware of not doing anything useful, despite all my fine words - and the thing of it is, this is being done in my name.

What if (how more hypothetical can you get) the coalition said, "Okay then, we'll stop," -- what then? How should they handle it? Do we just pick up our ball and go home?

Gee, I thought the whole reason to rush INTO the war was because, once there, it wouldn't be easy to end it before reaching "our" aims. Kind of like the rushing into the big idiotic tax cut for the superwealthy because, once enacted, it's harder to later *increase* the taxes once such a move is deemed necessary.

I've been wondering that, too, Cindy. As somebody who thinks this war is wrong (and who really, really regrets not DOING more about that), I don't know what I want the government to do. If the Good Fairy comes down, waves her wand, and says "For the next month, George Bush will do whatever you tell him to do", I have no idea what I say.

I cannot imagine us leaving with the war unfinished. It embarrasses us in front of the world, it reduces our ability to tell other countries (Korea much?) to "Drop that NOW!" But I can't see any way we can finish this war quickly, either. It's a tar baby.

This is very much me, Betsy. Very much. I was dead set against the war, pre-war, but can't bring myself to protest it now, because I can't see an alternative. Eside from embarrassing ourselves and allies in front of the world, it would seem even more irresponsible to abandon it than it was to start it in the first place.

we need to be doing our damnedest to look to what we can build once it's all over, and how we can keep this from poisoning our relations with other countries throughout the Middle East and throughout the rest of the world.

I agree with this too, Fay.

I think the news did say, in the case of the Boston protest, that the rally permit was applied for several weeks ago, before things got officially war-y.

I want to make clear I wasn't disparaging the Boston Protest. It caught my eye, because it was here, and because it seemed to go so well, but it just made me wonder, "To What End?"

I think there are so many different groups involved in protesting, that there's no set answer anyhow. A lot of people are in need of an outlet for their dissent. So many feel their voices weren't heard in the 2000 Presidential election, that I think the frustration level was higher at the outset of this situation (among us common folk) that it usually would be. There's a subset that would be just as unhappy, even if Bush had taken 75% of the popular vote and the electoral college. There's the pacifist contingent (whom I most understand, although I'm not strictly a pacifist). There are those who want us to lose. There are a million opinions in between all of these.

they may be signalling their intent to vote against such policies in future

I really hope an electable alternative to Bush appears on the scene; one I can vote for, one who can win. There are lots of politicians (not necessarily candidates for President right now) whom I could back, but most of them are too liberal or too dry to (imo) be electable.

or even just trying to redress the opinion of their country in the world press. (I, for one, think it's a great idea to remind everyone that a country of 280,000,000 people ddoesn't all think the same way, and by "everyone" I mean both within and without the country.)

If France hadn't threatened to veto, and the UN had gone along with Bush, Blair, Anzar, Howard, et al... How would people here feel about this war today? I'm just curious. Personally? I can't decide if I would be more comfortable or not. I'd take comfort in the fact that we were less lonely, but it wouldn't change the facts of the war itself. I've already found myself falling into the fallback decision of hoping it's over swiftly and decisively with Hussein and his regime out of power.

Gee, I thought the whole reason to rush INTO the war was because, once there, it wouldn't be easy to end it before reaching "our" aims. Kind of like the rushing into the big idiotic tax cut for the superwealthy because, once enacted, it's harder to later *increase* the taxes once such a move is deemed necessary.

Oh, it probably was. But I just wonder about the protests. It really was completely hypothetical - a "where would we go from here" question, because I don't ever see Bush concerning himself with them (at least not 'til it comes close to election time). I know what people don't want to see. I don't know what people now do want to see.