|
U-Know! Forum » Chomsky on Iraq |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 11:03
|
||
Ta Jon, its today, which means my hangover may last until Monday.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 11:05
|
||
Yeah I noticed that speech. Its a shame noone in power promotes alternative energies until it looks as if the oil is about to stop flowing. Seems to little, too late.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 11:13
|
||
|
Too right I wouldn't go out an kill phoney or Dubya ... unless they directly threatened me or my family of my friends. But I also could not take any action that I know will or could kill innocents. I could however take actions that will damage fat cats bank accounts and have done so many times. I have put my *own* body on the line many times to protect something I care about, but I would never put someone else's on that same line, especially if they didn't even know the line was there. I would, however, endeavour to let them know the line was there to be stood upon and hope that they joined me willingly. Would you ask for 500 volunteer grannies or hospital patients to willingly volunteer to go without oil based products for a few weeks as a protest against the actions? Maybe you could, but I couldn't and I don't think many people could. And I certainly think you would not find many people to do it. So how could you force them into this situation? Yes! This situation needs action and it needs mass action, but non violent action is a must. civil disobedience and dispruption of non-essential but luxory things is the key. Allow ordinary people to live but deprive the richer people the good life. You and your cause will earn more support and respect that way.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 11:14
|
||
|
Potentially my proposed action could kill a few people, I admit that, and will work to avoid that as it has been avoided in the past. My inaction will certainly kill many more people though. Stopping the oil flow in the UK temporaily will bring this country to a standstill, damage the economy and force people to think about why it is happening. It seems a far more reasonable target than blockading military bases for both moral and practical reasons. I don't care if people hate me, no change there. I will hate myself if I could have stopped the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and decided not to in case it made me unpopular. We are hated for allowing Bush to wage war with impunity, and some concrete show of solidarity with the Iraqi people may in the long term save many more British lives, it may dissuade the next Bali bomber.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 11:19
|
||
|
You say that your aim is first to stop the war; then to address world energy consumption. My whole point is that this war is simply a symptom of our current consumption patterns. Without cheap oil, the US (and European, Japanese, South Korean, Australian, etc etc) economy will fall apart. 1929, only much worse. If it were to happen now - without any real alternative in place - it would result in deaths in the USA (and many of those other places). Resource wars are an inevitable symptom of resource scarcity. The symptom itself is untreatable in many ways. It's the illness - the dependence upon that resource - that needs attention. And again, it needs repeating, i honestly don't believe that threatening innocent lives is a valid protest to prevent threats against innocent lives. Those who suffer most will be the worst off in society. Punishing the weak for the sins of the powerful is pretty dubious from an ethical stance. Also, and i wonder if you've considered this, what makes you think that blockades would be in any way effective this time round? Last time the government had no contingency plan. Last time it was businessmen, hauliers, company owners that were doing the protesting. Last time was before September 11th. This time you can be damn sure there's a contingency plan (that protest was the single largest PR disaster New Labour has yet had - way beyond Foot & Mouth in many ways). This time it'll be peaceniks, not businessmen (and police tend to clear those kind of protests a lot quicker, oddly enough). This time (post-sept 11th) the government will very quickly paint your protest as terrorism (i shit you not). And they'll get away with it, because queues at petrol stations is just about the quickest way to get people mad at you. Anyways, that's all by-the-by. We have differing opinions on this, and that's cool. Ultimately we're both "on the same side", i think. Though i still don't get the "punishing the innocent to protect the innocent" trip you're on. It's so Christian! Next week (i.e. when i next have the time) i'll probably write an article on this subject and will recycle a lot of my postings here - i hope nobody has any objections if i end up putting in a sentence or two that they might have written on this thread?
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 11:20
|
||
|
"Would you ask for 500 volunteer grannies or hospital patients to willingly volunteer to go without oil based products for a few weeks as a protest against the actions? " Visit a hospital in Iraq today - before the war - and repeat your statement. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children have been killed by sanctions, so yes, a couple of days without oil is something we should all be prepared to contemplate. Do you realise if the war goes ahead and fails then those 500 grannies will never see a drop of oil again ? Lesser of the two evils, and my way is nonviolent, as it has been proven to work in the past. Every action carries risks. The demo in london probably was responsible for a few deaths as ambulances had to take longer routes, etc, but that doesn't mean the demo was a bad thing does it ?
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 11:21
|
||
|
If the UK gov'ts would embrace Europe as being an older brother then I could see that happening, but as things stands the UK can pretend to be free and on its own, because older brother USA is so far away. The USA also needs the UK as a foot hold into Europe. I have said this before, but I believe that the USAs biggest fear is a toitally united Europe. The UK is their pawn in the game of power in Europe and they will not allow the UK to break free and join Europe whole heartedly. And there ain't a thing that the UK can do about it.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 11:45
|
||
|
I hope you do revisit the argument next week, just expect a staunch defence if you quote me out of context, as I'm sure you wouldn't. Anyone who believes it was right to fight fascism 60 years ago is already aware that lives are lost sometimes in order to save a greater number of lives. I am admitting the potential risk to a few UK citizens from my action, as there is a potential risk from a sit-down protest, and I am comfortable with that given the alternative certain slaughter. A couple of UK grannies dying - even my own or even myself - through my own action does not compare at all to the horrors of an Iraqi invasion, and it is moral cowardice not to face that fact and act, imo. Its the 'battle ye not with monsters lest ye become a monster' belt buckle argument that has led to many foriegn deaths while we act like ostriches. Standing on the sidelines doesn't make you a saint when the shooting starts, even if you are boo-ing. As to whether the action will succeed, no it probably won't but it certainly won't if I can't persuade people like you. The previous action succeeded mainly because the oil tanker drivers themselves were sympathetic to the hauliers and farmers outside, and yes, the police will treat protestors roughly this time. The same is true of any action at a military base during war time, which is the only alternative protest open to me given my mind set. Public opinion and international law is being ignored until it is manipulated to suit whatever Bush wants. I can see a few ways that this action can be made to succeed though, without deaths as has been demonstrated. As far as giving the anti-war movement a bad name, well if the war goes ahead the anti-war movement has failed and deserves a bad name. I must say I have pledged to take part in NVDA and hope to keep this action within that criteria, but even NVDA carries potential risks, its all about minimising those risks.
|
|||
|
YerArseInParsley 365 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 11:47
|
||
|
This war will destroy Europe and OPEC economically and leave the US relatively unscathed. Thats my opinion, but I think its the opinion of a few in power as well.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Oct 18, 2002, 12:02
|
||
|
I don't have time for this... but as the alternative is to do some work. . . . . . . Firstly, you need not worry - any quotes will be placed in context and only used in a positive manner. Though it goes without saying that the article will be biased in favour of one particular viewpoint. ;-) Secondly, i think you are (probably unwittingly) misrepresenting my stance on the issue of political protest. I am not proposing to stand on the sidelines (whether or not it made me a saint). I have come to certain conclusions regarding the best ways to deal with our current crises. I do not believe that blockading fuel depots is one of them. I believe it would be entirely counter-productive at this moment in history and would not save a single Iraqi life, but might take several in this country. For that reason - *because i believe what you are proposing will not work, and will in fact do more harm than good* - i can't support it as a tactic. That's not the same as setting up camp on the sidelines and booing. And it's not fair of you to imply that it is. I take a firm stance against the war (write letters, go on a demo or two... a little more than most, but not as much as many). However it is my firm conviction that the important battle to be fought is the energy policy one. It is there that i put most of my energies, because i believe - in the long term - that it is there that Iraqi lives will be saved. And it is there that American, Irish and Indian lives will be saved too. Don't make the mistake of believing that because someone is not dancing to the beat of your drum, that they're not dancing at all.
|
| Pages: 6 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
