As the potential military conflict with Iraq draws near, all sorts of weird things come out of woodwork. For example, some of them are planning a D-Day for the ‘peace’ movement in Europe and United States on 15th February. Andrew Burgin, spokesman for Britain’s Stop the War Coalition expects record numbers on the day at the biggest anti-war demonstration London has ever seen, all marching under a “Don’t attack Iraq” banner.
“The message is a simple one: no war against Iraq for any reason, whether the United Nations supports an attack or not.”
I am aware that the public opinion in Europe is at best divided over an attack on Iraq and in most countries – Britain and France included – is against by a wide margin if an invasion is not supported by the United Nations. However illogical that position might be, I have grown used to fighting it and nowadays it leaves me cold, merely a reminder of human stupidity. But “no war, for any reason”?! Who are these people?
The aim of the Coalition should be very simple: to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against ‘terrorism’.
When I looked at the list of supporters of the Stop the War Coalition, I found many of our old ‘friends’ from CND, assorted Marxist trade unions, and other institutions where ‘idiotarians’ like to congregate. Just a few rich pickings:
George Galloway MP, Harold Pinter (playwright), Lindsey German (Editor, Socialist Review), Paul Foot (journalist), George Monbiot (journalist), Tariq Ali (broadcaster), Liz Davies (Socialist Alliance), Dave Nellist (Socialist Party), John Rees (Editor, International Socialism), Will Self (writer), Germaine Greer (writer)…
These are just a few whose names have either been pilloried on this blog or the names of institution they belong to speak for themselves. What really gets me going is that these people confidently claim and occupy the moral highground in protesting against war with Iraq (notice how even the phrase ‘war on Iraq’ suggests aggression from our side; as far as I am concerned Iraq is at war with us and has been for some time, thanks to its megalomaniac leader).
They will satisfy their flaccid social consciences by making themselves ‘feel good’ about having the courage to stand up for things that everyone else is against like peace and justice and brotherhood… [hums the tune to Tom Lehrer’s song: We are the Folk Song Army, Everyone of us cares, We all hate poverty, war and injustice, Unlike the rest of you squares…] It’s an old communist, leftist, tranzi…etc technique. Grab them by their emotions and you are sure to be followed by those without reason.
What would these people say about fighting Hitler and the Nazi Germany or indeed about any aggressor attacking its neighbours and posing threat to the world? How do they square history with their idiotic demand to oppose war against Iraq for any reason? I fear that security and defence are meaningless concepts to such ideologues, what matters is that they get to call demonstrations against the US and be anti-American with a ‘noble’ message to boot. What joy!
On the other end of the table, we have the likes of Major Peter Ratcliffe, who won the Distinguished Conduct Medal for his role in the Scud base attack leading the crack Alpha One Zero squad behind enemy lines. He believes Britain should support any American military action in Iraq and describes anti-war critics in Tony Blair’s government as traitors:
“Tony Blair vowed to support America in the war on terrorism. He said: ‘Whatever it takes’. I see no reason why he should go back on that. Those who now say otherwise – old Labour lefties like Clare Short and Tam Dalyell, the pacifists, those now turning on Blair – they’re traitors.
Few doubted at the time of the Gulf War that Saddam’s true goal was to become a ruler of the Muslim world in the Middle East. There is no reason to believe that goal has changed. He is a megalomaniac. Saddam wants to dominate the Middle East, he wants to terrorise the world. His own people revile him.
Hussein has always vowed to avenge himself on America. His people suffer more, not less, because Saddam Hussein is allowed to remain in power. And they will continue to do so until he is removed. And no amount of hand-wringing, no amount of international aid, no amount of windy wobbling will change that fact.
Nobody likes war. Nobody enters a war recklessly, without deadly serious consideration of all the facts. Everyone would prefer to stay at home and hope for a political solution. But the fact is that there isn’t one.
Soldier’s words, honest and direct. They also carry far more weight as they are uttered by someone who fought to protect us and the society we live in.
1939 -1941 oppose a war between imperialist states.
1941 onwards – support the Allies once the worker’s paradise was invaded
I would have more time for the great war leader blair if he spent some money on the armed forces instead of throwing it away. Ass.
Just to emphasize Phillip Chaston’s point and to answer this question:
“What would these people say about fighting Hitler and the Nazi Germany or indeed about any aggressor attacking its neighbours and posing threat to the world?”
From August of ’39, when Hitler and Stalin agreed to invade Poland and allow Stalin to swallow the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, to June of ’42, Hitler and Stalin were allies and all the leftwing “Peace” groups opposed any British or America attempts to fight the Nazi’s. After the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, they “Peace” groups immediately switched over to a “Second Front Now”, the immediate invasion of Europe.
Of course, if the opinions of the “Second Fronters” had been followed, the invasion would’ve failed with the little liklihood of a second attempt. Nazi Germany would still be with us today.
The idiotarians can go pound sand.
How do you figure that Iraq has been at war with us for some time? Did you just notice this after Sept. 11, like Bush wanted you to, or were you arguing for invasion before then?
As far as I know, the US (and the UK) have continued fighting Iraq since 1991. There have been continual strikes by US and UK war planes against Iraqi military targets within the no-fly zones since the end of the Gulf war.
The U.S. has maintained forces, weaponry and supplies to equip 30,000 troops in the region. It has expanded bases in the Persian Gulf and built new ones, and made vast improvements in its ability to transport heavy equipment and supplies by sea and air in the last 10 years.
It’s just that the media haven’t covered it…
And yes, given half a chance I would have been advocating invasion of Iraq before September 11, only I discovered blogging well after that.
It is quite unfair to suggest that those who oppose war with Iraq are entirely members of Tom Lehrer’s folksong army. Not only does a majority of the population not back military action against Saddam (pick a dictator, any dictator…the one who got it away with it against Daddy looks best…) but some of those who specifically oppose it, such as O’Keefe with the idea of human shields, are former military men themselves, and it is a gross slur on them and their honour to attack their principles. Fighting Hitler, which the majority even of those you name would willingly do (more than you can say for the Appeasing Tories in the ’30s) is quite different from attacking Iraq (as opposed to the no-fly zone policy) on the grounds that they do/don’t/may have some NBC weapons just like our old friend Gaddafi, our new friends the Iranians, and the North Koreans who must be dealt with diplomatically. Oil, did someone say?
It is quite unfair to suggest that those who oppose war with Iraq are entirely members of Tom Lehrer’s folksong army. Not only does a majority of the population not back military action against Saddam (pick a dictator, any dictator…the one who got it away with it against Daddy looks best…) but some of those who specifically oppose it, such as O’Keefe with the idea of human shields, are former military men themselves, and it is a gross slur on them and their honour to attack their principles. Fighting Hitler, which the majority even of those you name would willingly do (more than you can say for the Appeasing Tories in the ’30s) is quite different from attacking Iraq (as opposed to the no-fly zone policy) on the grounds that they do/don’t/may have some NBC weapons just like our old friend Gaddafi, our new friends the Iranians, and the North Koreans who must be dealt with diplomatically. Oil, did someone say?
It is quite unfair to suggest that those who oppose war with Iraq are entirely members of Tom Lehrer’s folksong army. Not only does a majority of the population not back military action against Saddam (pick a dictator, any dictator…the one who got it away with it against Daddy looks best…) but some of those who specifically oppose it, such as O’Keefe with the idea of human shields, are former military men themselves, and it is a gross slur on them and their honour to attack their principles. Fighting Hitler, which the majority even of those you name would willingly do (more than you can say for the Appeasing Tories in the ’30s) is quite different from attacking Iraq (as opposed to the no-fly zone policy) on the grounds that they do/don’t/may have some NBC weapons just like our old friend Gaddafi, our new friends the Iranians, and the North Koreans who must be dealt with diplomatically. Oil, did someone say?