?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I haven't written since last Tuesday. So...most interesting thing that happened lately is the anti-war protest I went to on Saturday. It was a bit last-minute, I only found out cos I went to a vigil at the Cross on Thursday and found out they were doing a full-on protest in Chester on Saturday, the same day as the big one in London, which I couldn't go to. It was a bit low-key, a few people holding signs and one woman dressed up as a war widow, quite a few students there who were chalking slogans on the pavement (I contributed 'Fried Nicht Krieg' and 'Not In My Name'). Because I had Spanish missed the cool bit where everyone had to scream their heads off and hit things.
I was hoping that Takesy would be coming, but alas, went to Loves on Friday (wearing bondage tape, which got a few funny looks and probably encouraged Jack to disown me - actually, he already has) and was informed by his mate Phil that he was going to the big one in London. Damn. Still, the Chester one was good - we managed to get plenty of signatures on a card. I met some like-minded people including a Celtic harpist called Jean who'd made the best placard, one with anti-Bush cartoons on it, and one of my mum's friends. Of course there was abuse - scallies shouted "Bomb the bastards!", some weird guy got into an argument with the Italian woman holding the rainbow banner and got pretty nasty, and an old hag said she blamed 'the international Jewry', which really pissed me off - I thought Iraq was a Muslim country? What have Jews got to do with it? Then again, this is Chester, a Tory town full of ignorant Sun-reading halfwitted fools, where individuality is repressed. I fear Rob (the only friend I have who is supporting the war) may be turning into one of these ignorant Sun-reading halfwitted fools - well, he might if he starts reading The Sun, and if he does I'll be scared. The Sun is treating the war like an action movie. These are real people getting shot, you idiots, not actors. There will be no credits, no premieres, no gushing actors winning Oscars. Just devastation and death.
10 Reasons Why We Should Not Have Gone To War With Iraq:
1) Whatever happened to the second resolution? Instead of co-operating with the UN, Britain and the US just went ahead and bombed Iraq anyway. No wonder people are calling it an 'illegal' war.
2) Britain and the US have more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq - isn't it a bit hypocritical that we can have them but they can't?
3) Bush wants to make someone pay for September 11th; Osama hasn't been found in his cave yet, so the next available target will have to be another evil Muslim fanatic: Saddam Hussein. He seems to have gotten it into his head that Saddam is in league with Al-Q'aida. No evidence has been found to prove that. (NB: I am not talking out of my arse. Apparently, if Blair hadn't restrained him, Bush would have just gone and bombed Afghanistan there and then.)
4) There are many other evil dictators around the world. Kim Jong II of Korea and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to name but two. Why isn't the US invading Korea or Zimbabwe if they're so bothered about liberating repressed people?
5) The US has the greatest division between rich and poor in the world. Why can't it sort its own problems out instead of invading another country? This also goes for the UK.
6) There is only a small chance that Saddam will be killed - in these instances it's always the civilians who lose out and suffer the most, not the dictators, who have plenty of security, aides and bodyguards to look after them.
7) Supposing that the US and Britain win the war, what will happen to Iraq? Will the US install a corrupt 'puppet government', like they did with Cuba and Panama? And how will they 'liberate the Iraqis' - make them live under a corporate-controlled capitalist system?
8) People compare Saddam to Hitler. Yes, Saddam is a very bad man, and yes, he's murdered and tortured many of his people, but so have other dictators whose countries aren't being invaded by the US. See point 4. But Saddam is not trying to take over the world, like Hitler, nor is he aiming to wipe out a race of people based all over the world (as opposed to one country, ie the Kurds in Iraq), like Hitler was with the Jews. Hitler was worse than Saddam. In what way is Saddam a 'threat to world peace', anyway? Unlike Osama bin Laden is supposed to have done, he hasn't been issuing dire threats about what he plans to do in terms of terrorist attacks on Western powers who mess with him.
9) Here's an argument for the ignorant Sun-reading halfwitted fools to digest. I'll put it into simple words, ok? A lot of you want the nice Americans to bomb the bad Iraqis, right? Well, when a bomb lands on somebody's house it smashes the house into little bits, yeah? And when somebody's house is all smashed into little bits, they have to find a new one, because they can't live in a house that's just been smashed into little bits by a bomb, can they? So they have to find a new house, but as all the houses in Iraq have either been smashed to bits or will be smashed to bits by the nice Americans, the bad Iraqis want to go to a country where there are nice houses and where they can get away from that nasty Saddam. England has lots of nice houses. But the nice English people don't want the bad Iraqis coming here, because the bad Iraqis will take all their jobs and their council houses that the nice English people have been waiting for for six months. Now, if the nice Americans didn't drop bombs on the bad Iraqis' houses, the bad Iraqis would stay in Iraq instead of coming here, wouldn't they? (Please note: this is not MY point of view, but some of the stupider members of the pro-war lobby have been complaining about the influx of Iraqi asylum-seekers we will probably be getting. You can't have it both ways!)
10) It is a tragic and pointless waste of life. The Iraqis have suffered enough.
There are probably other and better arguments, but I can't think of them right now...