Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Calling Grufty Jim (& the rest of you 2)
Log In to post a reply

60 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: WWIII will be the last war
Nov 12, 2002, 14:40
OK, there's a few things you've said that don't add up to me.

"basically a rerun of an action that was carried out successfully recently - without a single death. Not one death yet government policy was changed because this nation was stuck in petrol station queues."

The previous blockades worked because the oil companies wanted them to work. Imagine how different they'd have been if heads of oil refineries were hassling Chief Constables, if heads of oil companies were hassling the Home Secretary.

Add to this the different way police treat 'subversives' such as anti-war people and you start to see how long this'd last. The police would wade in with riot gear straight away.

The public would support that, in part precisely because of the success of the last blockades and they don't want to have the queues again. They would also support it cos last time it was making things cheaper for motorists, this time it's done by some random person who thinks BP are something to do with bombing Iraq.

"Not I realise that won't happen this time, but it will bring the war home to all the morons who drive but don't know Iraq from Israel."

These people *do* know Iraq exists - how would a fuel cut make them realise and agree with your political opinion?

And, beyond any such symbolism, how would it prevent the bombing of Iraq?

I asked this in my last post but you don't seem to have answered it, whilst still grandly comparing yourself to an assassin of Hitler.

"I am not prepared yet to kill or even risk hurting people directly to save Iraqi lives, except my own." - you are still claiming you'll be 'saving Iraqi lives' here. How do you reach this conclusion?

"You also doubt the effectiveness of the action in stopping the invasion of Iraq. So do I. Its just I have just never witnessed any action as effective as the one I propose"

You are using the word 'effectiveness' to mean two *different* things here, and yet you talk like they mean the same thing. In the first instance you mean stopping the war against Iraq, in the second you mean the impact of the action in stopping fuel supply. They are not the same thing at all.

Asking for a "more effective action" continues this idea. Shutting off fossil fuel spully would indeed be effective at pissing people off. At the risk of repeating myself, the unanswered idea is how this would affect war with Iraq.

"Perhaps if it was your mother..." is a cheap shot that's beneath you. It presumes that I know how much this'd stop a war with Iraq but don't want to risk my own neck.

"Many will be targeting military bases. I'd rather hit the oil infrastructure, partly because I don't think the British army wants this war..."

Whether this is true or not, if this is the army making war then they are surely just as guilty whether they 'want' to do it or not.

"and it is wrong to interfere with an army during a war" is the most bizarre thing I've heard any non-military person say about war, what on earth do you mean?

Given that the miltiary are waging war, I'd have thought they'd be your first choice.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index