# Self righteous anti war campaigners



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

Question - who gives these people the right to keep saying they speak for the British Public? We all know that poll questions can be easily weighted to give the response you want. 53 million people didn't march through London, three million plus were out fishing, several hundred thousand were watching football.


----------



## Nik-S3 (Nov 6, 2002)

and who gives them the right to dismiss people with differing views as 'morons', 'tories' or whatever is the current fave put down in the CND/ANL


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

And why don't these school kids demonstrate at the weekend? Because obviously they don't have to go to school at the weekend.

They keep moaning that they're not being taken seriously, but it's so transparent it's embarrassing.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Yup, I completely agree.

Funny how Iraq has launched some Scud missiles at Kuwait, even though they are banned weapons, & they denied having them as late as Thursday!


----------



## Nik-S3 (Nov 6, 2002)

> And why don't these school kids demonstrate at the weekend? Because obviously they don't have to go to school at the weekend.
> 
> They keep moaning that they're not being taken seriously, but it's so transparent it's embarrassing.


LOL, yeah good point

fucking little twats


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Yup, I completely agree.
> 
> Funny how Iraq has launched some Scud missiles at Kuwait, even though they are banned weapons, & they denied having them as late as Thursday!


So what? Israel has some 50 outstanding UN resolutions against it- many for banned weapons but no one threatening to overthrow their right wing govt and disarm them.

Don't expect singular standards in US global policies.


----------



## ccc (May 7, 2002)

Having read Anne Clwyd's piece in The Times the other day, citing Amnesty International's evidence of Saddam's terror squads feeding dissidents through a plastics shredder, any qualms I had about the war have gone.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Having read Anne Clwyd's piece in The Times the other day, citing Amnesty International's evidence of Saddam's terror squads feeding dissidents through a plastics shredder, any qualms I had about the war have gone.


And I read some stuff in the paper about them being nasty and unkind to old people, cripples and animals, so really we should just nuke them now.


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

> so really we should just nuke them now. Â


Yep.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2003)

> So what? Israel has some 50 outstanding UN resolutions against it- Â many for banned weapons but no one threatening to overthrow their right wing govt and disarm them.
> 
> Don't expect singular standards in US global policies.


too right......


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

The sad thing is this is not 'war'.......so stop referring to it as such.

This is one way killing......where US troops are bombing and Iraqi's are dieing.

In one of the papers it stated 'this is probably the most mis-matched conflict ever (apart from Israel and palestinians of course)'.

Why am I against this conflict?

1) The west supplied Saddam the weapons to use on his own people + Iran. You can't give bullets and guns to a crazy person and then say o look he's used them.

2) Saddam was contained for 12 years, he's not a threat to us or his neighbours. He knew if he threatened anyone he would be destroyed.

3) Iraq is 'almost' unarmed. The magnitude of force being used is disproportionate.

4) The war is unneccesary and expensive, bloody fuel + taxes will rise!

5) We are sidelining the opinions of a billion people, thats a quarter of the worlds population! Every muslim i've spoken to is against this conflict. Dangerous message to be sending out. question i get asked continuosly is 'Why is muslim life so cheap?' As in is the outcome of the conflict worth the x,00,000 civilian lives that will be lost.

6) The result of this conflict will be a pro western puppet government. Exactly what Saddam hussein was when he was installed by the west in the '70's!!! Looks like we haven't learnt lessons from history.

7) Is North Korea next??? I shudder to think because they DO have nukes!.....but i'm sure they won't be attacked because they don't have oil 

Two things come to my mind from what has happened in Iraq.

a) If a country has weapons of mass destruction and is asked to disarm by the UN, then it is highly unlikely to do so. It knows that if it does disarm then the USA will still attack it, just like in Iraqs case.

b) This action has increased the arms race with more countries trying to develop nukes as a deterance.

I'm not a 'Self righteous anti war campaigner' as the title of this topic suggests but I am against this conflict.

^Kast^


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

Â 
>So what? Israel has some 50 outstanding UN resolutions against >it- Â many for banned weapons but no one threatening to >overthrow their right wing govt and disarm them. 
Â >Don't expect singular standards in US global policies. 
Â 
Israel: democratically elected Govt. can be dismissed (and regularly has been). free speech. One person one vote (even Arab Israelis who are also MP's). Never used, or threatened to use its nuclear arsenal (which it denies it has)

Iraq: One man who elected himself. Freedom of speech if you lilke being strapped to a mattress and having battery electrodes attached to your nuts. Track record in roasting, gassing, and poisoning people.


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

> Israel: democratically elected Govt. can be dismissed (and regularly has been). free speech. One person one vote


If Israel really wants to exercise democracy it should give the palestinians the right of return and the right to vote i.e. their human rights!



> if you lilke being strapped to a mattress and having battery electrodes attached to your nuts. Â


Sounds like the techniques used by Mossad.



> So what? Israel has some 50 outstanding UN resolutions against >it-


Point being, USA needs consistency in its foreign policy. It can't veto every Resolution put by the security council against Israel and at the same time complain about France or Russia exercising their right to do the same over Iraq.
The resolutions against Israel are serious and need to be dealt with, otherwise the bitterness towards US foreign policy will continue to undermine its credibility in the world.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> bloody fuel + taxes will rise!


Actually the crude oil is not going down again. It went up to $39 and it is about $27 now...so the fuel prices will go down again.


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

We'll see what happens. The longer the conflict continues the more it'll effect oil prices. I hope it is a short conflict.


----------



## Nik-S3 (Nov 6, 2002)

> This is one way killing......where US troops are bombing and Iraqi's are dieing.


One civilian so far isnt it? oh, and possibly a murderous dictator according to the Pentagon today



> In one of the papers it stated 'this is probably the most mis-matched conflict ever (apart from Israel and palestinians of course)'.


Hardly a conflict at all I'd say, the strikes so far have been pinpointed at Saddams government and military administration buildings. His 'troops' are being bombarded with leaflets instructing them how to 'defect' and that they will have their weapons taken off them and given the option of returning to their famillies, they're doing this in their droves



> 1) The west supplied Saddam the weapons to use on his own people + Iran. You can't give bullets and guns to a crazy person and then say o look he's used them.


Of course you can. Business is business unfortunately. If he starts using them to kill his own people, its our responsibility to go and rectify the situation



> 3) Iraq is 'almost' unarmed. The magnitude of force being used is disproportionate.


I dont believe theres been a massive strike at all yet. Surgical missile strikes and a relatively small number of ground engagments, most of which seem to be ending with Iraqis defecting



> 4) The war is unneccesary and expensive, bloody fuel + taxes will rise!


Fuels coming down next month isnt it?



> 5) We are sidelining the opinions of a billion people, thats a quarter of the worlds population! Every muslim i've spoken to is against this conflict. Dangerous message to be sending out. question i get asked continuosly is 'Why is muslim life so cheap?' As in is the outcome of the conflict worth the x,00,000 civilian lives that will be lost.


*Whats it got to do with Muslims/Islam* ??? Ask the shaeite muslims in Basra, I think they'll disagree



> 6) The result of this conflict will be a pro western puppet government. Exactly what Saddam hussein was when he was installed by the west in the '70's!!! Looks like we haven't learnt lessons from history.


No it wont, the west will merely provide the means for the Iraqis to elect their own government rather than be ruled by a dictatorship



> 7) Is North Korea next I shudder to think because they DO have nukes!.....but i'm sure they won't be attacked because they don't have oil


Time will tell, but it certainly looks like they are next. I hope so too, they have nukes yes, and they're fucking dangerous with them



> I'm not a 'Self righteous anti war campaigner' as the title of this topic suggests but I am against this conflict.


Precisely, we're all entitled to our opinions. Its just the anti war campaign, or at least those that make it on telly, seem to think they speak for the rest of us, and come across as unruly thugs most of the time


----------



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

or 13 year olds with a real in-depth knowledge of politics...


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

I feel personal opinion on this war will not be swayed. But, personal opinion is not going to stop this war.

People should just rally behind our troops, & hope for a quick ending...


----------



## Nik-S3 (Nov 6, 2002)

amen

god bless those poor bastards who died in the helicopter crash, and their families


----------



## r1 (Oct 31, 2002)

> having them as late as Thursday!


Eh???????


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> I feel personal opinion on this war will not be swayed. But, personal opinion is not going to stop this war.
> 
> People should just rally behind our troops, & hope for a quick ending...


I wish absolutely no harm to Britsh service folk in doing their job (although it is a job they signed up for I presume) but refuse to be subjected to Blair's emotional blackmail that we should now 'get behind our troops'. Why? Because they are doing a good job? Well that may be the case but it's the wrong job in many peoples view. One that they have no choice in. Unfortunately for Tony the population does have a choice to support or reject and should not be subjected to his spin blackmail as if they are in any way unpatriotic or supportive of the services by continuing to express a view on the wrongness of the US and British decision to ignore the UN mandates.

Blair committed the troops to action and their fates the day they were sent out there long before diplomatic approaches were abandoned - there was no chance of amassing all that military might and power without deploying it. To pull out would have looked ridiculous and the US masters had to really work hard to move the goal posts and press on with what was always their intentions whilst retrospectively justifying it to a divided UN, Europe and UK and US populations.

I only hope they manage to avoid killing each other with friendly fire this time round.


----------



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

So I guess you are going to go to Iraq to tell the same thing to Saddam...or do 'peace' campaigners think it is only us that has to abide by UN resolutions. While you are there, pop in and have a chat with the real people of Iraq and ask whether they would prefer to live under an American style democracy or a dictatorship...


----------



## Andy_TT (Jun 5, 2002)

I find it rather interesting that for the last few month/years Saddam has claimed to have had no long-range missiles, however, yesterday managed to find a couple of Scuds to fire at Kuwait City. Why did the UN weapons inspectors not find these and what else has been hidden from them? Â Don't get me wrong by the above statement I think the Weapons Inspectors did a great job, however, if a leader like Saddam wants to hide weapons it is not difficult in a country as large and oppressed as the former Iraq.

On the second note raised above lets hope the US, once this conflict is over, has the balls and decency to sort out the Israel/Palestine issue as well. Â Until this is sorted there will never be peace in the Middle East and the general hatred of the US/West in the region will increase.

As for spotty kids on peace protests most of them donâ€™t even know where Iraq is. In most cases it was just an excuse to bunk off a few hours of classes on a sunny afternoon. Iâ€™m sure once the weather turns a little cooler and the rain starts they will all be back in their warm dry classrooms!!!

Anyway letâ€™s prey for a swift and rapid solution to this war, and god bless the troops out in the gulf and the families of the servicemen that died overnight.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> So I guess you are going to go to Iraq to tell the same thing to Saddam...or do 'peace' campaigners think it is only us that has to abide by UN resolutions. Â While you are there, pop in and have a chat with the real people of Iraq and ask whether they would prefer to live under an American style democracy or a dictatorship...


Don't get your point on going to Iraq and seeing Saddam. Â ??? Neither do I suggest that peace campaigners speak for everyone. Â Neither do I deny the Iraq problem - just the style and dictatorial nature of the US 'solution' to that problem - which is in effect to ignore and divide the international community and further alienate the Arab and muslim nations. Â the ramifications of this have yet to unfold. Â They will be more serious to global stability than many would imagine.

Democracy is simply not a feature of Arab culture or constitution, and the US is ignorant and arrogant about that. Â Who are we to say that democracy is the right model? Kuwait, Iran, Saudi, UAE, Syria, Jordan are not democracies in the western sense by any stretch of the imagination - although some of them (Kuwait and Saudi) have easily manipulated rulers. (some might say puppets) which are all dictatorships. Â Do not confuse that with true democracy. Some are benevolent and that is the difference. Â That the Iraqi people would prefer to live under a benevolent dictatorship is a given. Â

That is what the US want. Â Someone easy to manipulate and who will dance to their tune. Â Then when a supposed democracy is established and things are all calm, the US can start selling them arms again knowing fully that they can be disarmed at will if the US administration changes it's stance in any way as they have with Iraq, and as they did with Bin Laden in the Afghanistan conflict.


----------



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

I don't pretend to know about the forms of democracy in all the arab states but I do know that every five years I can vote, I can express my views openly and if it wasn't for the US, we would all be speaking German now


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> 2) Saddam was contained for 12 years, he's not a threat to us or his neighbours.


 I'm not sure that is how the US or, indeed, Blair sees it. 9/11 changed quite a lot of things especially the realisation that if Bin Laden and his cronies do get hold of a nuclear device or a large chemical 'bomb' then they will have no qualms about using it on US (or UK) soil.

Now the possible linkage between Bin Laden and Iraq is tenuous to say the least but it is by no means out of the question. Therefore is it 'risky' enough to justify undertaking this pre-emptive strike against Iraq to get rid of the threat no matter how small it may be (cos the consequences are huge).

How many are willing to take the risk of, say, a city the size of Bristol being removed from the face of the map if the small risk comes to fruition. With that in mind who would be willing to stand up after the event and declare that to do nothing was the right course of action. This I believe is the dilemma facing the various leaders at the moment. Perhaps we should all ask ourselves the question "Are we really willing to take the risk?"


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> I don't pretend to know about the forms of democracy in all the arab states but I do know that every five years I can vote, I can express my views openly and if it wasn't for the US, we would all be speaking German now


I can't think any Arab state or nation that has a pukka western democracy. Like the way Bush was voted in........

Ironically the Germans don't want to fight this one - preferring to use the UN inspectorate route.

Someone said this morning about the world being turned upside down:

The number one Rapper is white; the best Golfer Black; the tallest basketball player is Chinese; the French are accusing the Americans of being arrogant; and the Germans don't want to fight. 

Thank heavens for the consistent things in modern western life ... like Starbucks and McDonalds.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> How many are willing to take the risk of, say, a city the size of Bristol being removed from the face of the map if the small risk comes to fruition. With that in mind who would be willing to stand up after the event and declare that to do nothing was the right course of action. This I believe is the dilemma facing the various leaders at the moment. Perhaps we should all ask ourselves the question "Are we really willing to take the risk?"


You are right Garvin about taking the risk(and I live in Bristol Â ). Â But in that case N. Korea, Pakistan and Israel should be considered bigger risks as they already have the technology, refuse UN weapons inspections and have major gripes with the world or other countries in particular .

There are plenty of despots who could have WMD within a five year timeframe too like Saddam. Â Of course they don't all have the planets second largest oil reserves......not that this is about oil. 

The US were also adamant and convinced of the rightness of their approaches in Korea, Vietnam, Greneda, Somalia, Panama and so on. Â History has showed them to be wrong and not the best campaigns/wars, Â so I really hope they have got it right this time.

And as Blair and Bush have both said the population doesn't have to be behind the decision to invade since they are not elected just to follow the will of the population but to make decisions on their behalf. Â Scarey.

My condolences to all service folk and their families and friends for the casualties to date and for those to come.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> You are right Garvin about taking the risk(and I live in Bristol Â ). Â But in that case N. Korea, Pakistan and Israel should be considered bigger risks as they already have the technology, refuse UN weapons inspections and have major gripes with the world or other countries in particular .


I have no strategic knowledge whatsoever, but would it not be advantageous for allied forces to occupy Iraq if they were looking to move onto other targets such as N.Korea :-/?


----------



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

Think S Korea might be a bit closer....


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> I have no strategic knowledge whatsoever, but would it not be advantageous for allied forces to occupy Iraq if they were looking to move onto other targets such as N.Korea Â :-/?


How about annexing off a part of a newly liberated Iraq (they have loads of space) and making that the new Israel, freeing Palestine up for Palestinians thereby diffusing the whole Zionist Middle East tensions?

(oh alright, well at least it would be moving it further from Europe )


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> (oh alright, well at least it would be moving it further from Europe )


lol, very true...


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> You are right Garvin about taking the risk(and I live in Bristol Â ). Â But in that case N. Korea, Pakistan and Israel should be considered bigger risks as they already have the technology, refuse UN weapons inspections and have major gripes with the world or other countries in particular .


I do not believe the issue is that Saddam Hussein will use the weapons, it is that they will get into the hands of Al Quaeda via him, either deliberately or inadvertantly and that AQ, who do not have a home country as such, will use them. North Korea/Pakistan/Israel may be a threat but the 'rules' of MAD (mutually assured destruction) apply here i.e. if they use them they know that their home country will indeed be removed from the face of the planet by those Trident submarines lurking in the oceans depths. During the 'cold war' the policy of MAD is what kept the staus quo. If AQ use a weapon whose country do you obliterate, or threaten to obliterate, in retaliation? That is why AQ are such a more potent threat.


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

> One civilian so far isnt it?


Many people have already been killed including our own servicemen. What a waste of life.



> Hardly a conflict at all I'd say, the strikes so far have been pinpointed at Saddams government and military administration buildings. His 'troops' are being bombarded with leaflets instructing them how to 'defect' and that they will have their weapons taken off them and given the option of returning to their famillies, they're doing this in their droves


War propaganda is great isn't it. If only war was really this 'clean'.



> Business is business unfortunately. If he starts using them to kill his own people, its our responsibility to go and rectify the situation


I find these comments alarming. Justification for selling chemical weapons to a dictator is 'business is business'!!!!



> I dont believe theres been a massive strike at all yet. Surgical missile strikes and a relatively small number of ground engagments


As I said earlier we are witnessing a disproportionate use of force. Its the civilians who are suffering.



> Fuels coming down next month isnt it?


Well isn't that nice, I guess the chancellor will have to increase duty on fuel...again!!!!!!!



> Whats it got to do with Muslims/Islam Ask the shaeite muslims in Basra, I think they'll disagree


Everything actually, because its muslim blood we are spilling. Everyone wants to see the end of Saddam Hussein but not by bombing Iraq the way we are doing at the moment.



> Time will tell, but it certainly looks like they are next. I hope so too, they have nukes yes, and they're fucking dangerous with them


Pre-emptive strike by North korea comes to mind.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> As I said earlier we are witnessing a disproportionate use of force. Its the civilians who are suffering.


I was fairly determined not to be too deeply drawn into this, simply because it is pointless. :

However, I do not believe their show of force is disproportionate. If you were an iraqi army person, & you heard a few thousand allied troops were coming to defeat your country & president, you would almost certainly be prepared to defend it, believing you have a chance. *But*, if you were such a troop, & saw the unbelievable display of force witnessed tonight & during the past days you would be a complete fool not to desert your tyranical leader.

The scale of force will minimise the length of the conflict, which in turn will reduce casualties.

I also say again, they are not carpet bombing Baghdad. They are using accurate weapons. Some will go wrong, & some innocents will be killed. However, I believe that the innocents are at more risk of being killed by a desperate Saddam, or regime <if he is still alive>, than by the potential for stray weapons from our forces. Also, Baghdad is a pretty big place, & they dont have to be in the vicinity of the military targets. Lets see how many journalists are killed. I suspect none, but they are still in the same city... :-/


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

>This is probably the most mis-matched conflict ever (apart from >Israel and palestinians of course)'. 
Â 
Actually it was probably the Iraqi air force against the 5,000 unarmed villagers of Halabja who were gassed to death 15 years ago ...


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Getting back on the subject:

Is it me, or do all the anti-war protesters <especially the ones outside RAF Fairford> look like vagrants?

Apparently they have been there for up to two weeks, & will remain for the forseeable future. I am guessing we as tax-payers support them & their families... :-/


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Getting back on the subject:
> 
> Is it me, or do all the anti-war protesters <especially the ones outside RAF Fairford> look like vagrants?
> 
> Apparently they have been there for up to two weeks, & will remain for the forseeable future. I am guessing we as tax-payers support them & their families... Â :-/


Aye, Pikeys, dykies and layabouts the lot of them


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

> Getting back on the subject:
> 
> Is it me, or do all the anti-war protesters <especially the ones outside RAF Fairford> look like vagrants?
> 
> Apparently they have been there for up to two weeks, & will remain for the forseeable future. I am guessing we as tax-payers support them & their families... Â :-/


My brother is one of the protestors in Parliament Square. Normally he busks for a living but has been spending much of his time with Brian Haw, the guy who has been in Parliament Square for years protesting about the sanctions, no fly zone bombings etc.

All I would say is this. He has spent weeks and months researching the situation in Iraq and is well clued up on what has occurred in Iraq since the first Gulf War. As opposed to most people who stare at the BBC for their information.

He believes passionately in his cause, which incidentally is only anti-war, not pro-Saddam.

He doesn't say he speaks for the British public, he speaks for himself.

His views are well founded and he has written essays on the subject.

That said, he has a pierced eyebrow, so I guess he does look like a vagrant! 

BTW The tax I pay is comfortably enough to pay for him to be in Westminster, and I am happy to pay it. Remember people in Iraq are not free to protest, but I guess that means that they won't be insulted by the likes of Nik-S3 either.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Aye, Pikeys, dykies and layabouts the lot of them


lol...


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

> >This is probably the most mis-matched conflict ever (apart from >Israel and palestinians of course)'.
> 
> Actually it was probably the Iraqi air force against the 5,000 unarmed villagers of Halabja who were gassed to death 15 years ago ...


Definitely the Israeli and Palestinian conflict is a rerun of David and Goliath.
Something that sticks in my mind is a comment by the Right wing Israeli prime minister,

" Ariel Sharon said recently he regretted the tragedy of Sabra and Shatila, but asked if he would apologise he replied "To apologise for what?" "

-- F. Keane, in "The Accused", BBC-Panorama, 17/6/2001 --

As*h*les like this make me anti war. I think the only way to make the world a safer place is to give every1 nukes. Its the only way to bring people to act responsibly. I don't think people would be too keen to go in and bomb civilian cities if they knew that the response could be a nuke in their own city.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I don't think that the protesters will gain anything at all. The war will continue.

I have no time to protest, but even if I had, I know it won't get us anywhere. Waste of time really!! :-/


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> I don't think that the protesters will gain anything at all. The war will continue.
> 
> I have no time to protest, but even if I had, I know it won't get us anywhere. Waste of time really!! Â :-/


This is oh so true. Why people are still bothering completely baffles me. If 1M protestors before war cannot stop it, 500k people certainly wont...


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Apparently, the people that go to these protests are unemployed and have nothing better to do. I think that the enjoy the social interaction that they get and the fact that they protest against the government. I guess they blame the government for being poor and uneducated without a job. They simply want to go against the "system"!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> This is oh so true. Why people are still bothering completely baffles me. If 1M protestors before war cannot stop it, 500k people certainly wont...


Perhaps they are concerned that Blair spin will instantly turn lack of protestation to mean 100% full support of the war from the populace - which clearly is not the case.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

I guess, although some recent poll suggested a small majority now think Blair did the right thing...


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2003)

Theres a Band ! Theres a Wagon ! Most of the School kids wanted a day off....

Its a pity these self righteous wankers did not campaign or failed to jump up and down when Sadam fucking killed his own people with WMD..

Claire Short ermmm has done more U-Turns than B.S.M. Driving School...

Lets march on London , why ? Lets march on Bahgdad


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Well, they can no longer say the majority of Britain dont want this war:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030324/80/dw6k2.html

Now, where can I get a Not, Not In My Name banner ...


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I am sure the soldiers that now die are not so keen on war! :-/


----------



## donna_kebab (May 8, 2002)

> My brother is one of the protestors in Parliament Square. Â BTW The tax I pay is comfortably enough to pay for him to be in Westminster, and I am happy to pay it. .


Carlos - its nice that the guy has researched and is airing his views in the best way he knows how, and its also nice that you can afford to pay the tax to cover it and not worry.

I think the thing that annoys most people is that he is in a minority and in my opinion over 50% of our recent protesters were there out of boredom, a deisre to miss an archeology lecture or a chance to buy some gear in a group buy in Leciester Square, notice the students / children were much fewer on Saturday with no lessons to miss.

Furthermore there are a lot of people who work hard and still struggle to make ends meet and a cut in Taxes would help them a lot.

A large group of them were in the one-way system in Farnham, camped in the middle of the road, with 'beep' if you disagree with Bush signs. I was well annoyed, half of them were half-cut, due to being camped outside a wine bar and the rest were just plain dirty. I purposly avoided driving through them

a) for fear of getting a kick because I didnt and would 'beep'

b) Just washed the car (again) and didnt want to get it dirty!


----------



## newcasTTle (Nov 29, 2002)

going back to the original point - surely someone who is ANTI war (death, killing, maiming etc) is entitled to be a little riteous ???


----------



## teucer2000 (May 14, 2002)

Death, killing, maiming....sounds like the Saddam's regime to me. Don't hear much from the protesters about that. If this country was ever invaded, most of the so-called peace campaigners would be hiding somewhere hoping the problem would go away.


----------



## ^outt^kast^ (Jun 7, 2002)

> If this country was ever invaded,


We got invaded a long time ago .......by the US culture...Innit! Â ;D

But now the campaigners are fighting back ......do u know how many calories u eating in ur Big Mac there sir !! Â [smiley=chef.gif] [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]


----------



## newcasTTle (Nov 29, 2002)

> Death, killing, maiming....sounds like the Saddam's regime to me. Don't hear much from the protesters about that. If this country was ever invaded, most of the so-called peace campaigners would be hiding somewhere hoping the problem would go away.


oh i don't know - some of them look like they could be quite arsey with a couple of pints of cider in them


----------

