Stop "the" war - which wars?

[bluestreak]

I have listed a whole load of "ongoing wars" which are happening right now.

Why are the STWC not protesting about any of them?

here's my cynical take - because many of the places that you mention do not economically effect the UK in obvious ways the UK is not as interested in them. in the middle east the it affects such things as oil prices. it's also more local than most of the other wars mentioned. more people in the UK are from the middle east perhaps? it appears more relevant. the muslim and jewish communities who identify with their co-religionists to assorted degrees have voices and votes.

and the SWP are heavily involved in the STWC, which means that they'll use any excuse.

personally i'm just as unhappy about what is going on in somalia and sudan, but i don't see it all the time on the tv and internet and whatnot it's hard to maintain the righteous rage when you can't watch the blown up kids streamed directly to your desktop.

or is that argument not partisan and denigrating enough?

 

[belboid]

as dire as set of arguments as you normally come out with - ones displaying your usual ignorance and lack of politics.

All you have done is list a bunch of countries in which there is some conflict (ie repeated your original post) and made the point that the US has some interest in all of them. Many of those countries are not actually involved in a 'war' and many of the ones that are have no especial interest for the US as to which side wins (it may well prefer the devil it knows, but that's it). That is fundamentally different to what is happening in the middle-east at the moment - which is trying to create a complete and utter shift in the nature of the region and its regimes. In the other countries to which you refer they are simply trying to keep 'business as usual'.

Still, as you are a liberal, I wouldnt really expect you to see the difference.

 

[TeeJay]

yes I'm sure if this country/the US invaded anywhere other than the Middle-East then the left would have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever and would simply say 'fuck them, they're not in the Middle-East, who cares'? - are you actually believing this shit yourself by the way?

Why have the STWC decided to protest about Israel's attack on Lebanon (where there is no direct UK or US military involvement) but have remained silent about:

Colombia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Turkey, Uganda, Senegal, Somalia, Nepal, Democratic Republic of Congo, Russia, Laos, Côte d'Ivoire, Thailand, Pakistan, Sudan, Chad and Western Sahara.

Why just single out the West Bank and Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Iran for mentions on this leaflet?

If you call yourself "Stop The War Coalition" then why start cherry-picking wars that the UK and US are not involved with, wars that have not even started yet - but ignore a whole list of other wars that are currently underway right now, some with massive loss of life and some which do actually have direct and indirect US and UK involvement (for example directly = US forces in Colombia, indirectly = UK arms sales, trade, aid and diplomatic and political support for one side or another).

Sorry but it is not true that STWC only focusses on existing conflicts nor is it true that they only focus on conflicts where either the UK or US is directly involved.

The criteria being used seems to be very much geographically based and it simply looks like the STWC has been hijacked by people with a specific and narrow agenda or shopping list: if they are interested then it goers on th list, if not then it is ignored. It doesn't look like the STWC has an coherent. consistent or rational criteria that it applies at all.

 

[belboid]

You're a dishonest little shit teejay - your question has been answered several times but you choose to ignore the answer, to justify your own right-wing support for the war against Iraq and for the current Israeli actins.

here, again, is the founding aime of the STWC:

" The aim of the Coalition should be very simple: to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against 'terrorism'."

very simple, and very clear as to why it is opposing certain wars, but not others.

Now go away.

 

[TeeJay]

I think Teejay should take note of the company he has attracted. The only two posters to back his view so far are our resident 'three yorkshiremen' parody-reactionary and the uber-pessimist poster who thinks every struggle or conflict is lost to the progressive side before it has even started.

This isn't "company" - I have asked a straightforward question about the STWC. It is inevitable that on almost any thread asking a question like this you are going to get people on both sides having a go at each other. This has nothing to do with me and these posters have not taken the same position as me anyway - I have not made any sweeping statements about the 'UK left' (I am asking just about the STWC specifically - a group that many on the 'left' have criticised massively ever since it was founded). In my initial post I didn't outline any position - I simply asked some questions.

Wars in the Middle East attract more attention for a number of reasons - one because they have more potential for spilling over into more global problems (terrorism, oil related issues, major power interests) than conflicts in say Burma or Zimbabwe. Secondly (and for the first reasons) the major powers, including the Anglo-American conglomerate power (that most posters here live under and believe rightly or wrongly they can affect in some way) have interests, positions and involvement in the conflicts that are more important to them than in countries like Burma or Zimbabwe.

However, I think the belief that the left in Britain is only interested in the Middle East is patently ludicrous - do those arguing this really think that the STWC, and the left in general would sit quietly by while war broke out (with or without direct US involvement) in Venezuela or Cuba, to give but two examples?

Care to make a list of the conflicts that the STWC has protested about and compare that to the far longer list in my initial post?

You will find that the STWC has picked a very short list of wars and not-yet-wars to focus on and ignored a hell of a lot of other wars all around the world.

You have not procided any kind of justification for this yet. Does one even exist, or is it simply the case that the STWC just adds things on randomly based on their own and their members' interests?

This doesn't make them 'wrong' per se - any organsiation is free to protest about whatever they want and each issue, conflict or potential conflict may well deserve attention.

However, there doesn't seem to be any clear criteria about what gets on the STWC list and what doesn't.

 

[bluestreak]

teejay, your question has been answered by a number of people.

 

[TeeJay]

The idea that the entire left is motivated primarily by its hatred of Jews is just as delusional as thinking the shape-shifting lizards are in control. I smell desperate trollage.

Fruitloop, I am the original poster who started this thread and nowhere have I made either a statement about the 'entire left' or about 'hatred of Jews'. Starting to scream about trolls - even if you are talking about other posters on this thread - doesn't provide any kind of answer to my original post.

 

[Fruitloop]

This place is like a fucking lunatic asylum sometimes.

 

[belboid]

the fact that you have chosen to ignore all the answers to your OP does, tho, mark you down as either a dimwit or a troll tho

 

[Fruitloop]

Fruitloop, I am the original poster who started this thread and nowhere have I made either a statement about the 'entire left' or about 'hatred of Jews'. Starting to scream about trolls - even if you are talking about other posters on this thread - doesn't provide any kind of answer to my original post.

Well it can't have been a post about you then, innit.

 

[TeeJay]

They've made that quite clear on their website:

http://stopwar.org.uk/AboutUs.htm

"to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against 'terrorism'."

Let me repeat:

Colombia, Turkey, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines - how many of these are *not* supported by the US or have the US in some way involved? The same question can be asked for Africa: Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Western Sahara, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal. Russia also projects its own imperialism into the caucuses and central asia. Why doesn't this count for anything?

"Stop the war against terrorism" - so this means stopping the war against all kinds of terrorism or just Islamist terrorism?

What if Islamist terrorists won't stop the war against everyone else?

Sorry but this still doesn't explain why the STWC makes partial and highly selective lists and leaves off many other conflicts that should - by your reasoning - be covered.

 

[belboid]

Are you an imbecile or just a liar? The asnwer has been given as is obvious to everyone apart from you. So you just repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat.

You're a poor apologist for Bush, why cant you just admit it?

Is it because you're a coward, and a liar, and a fool.

 

[TeeJay]

This is true to a degree, but I think that's partly because western governments rarely support such wars so there's little to protest against domesticly.

This is utter horse-shit.

If you take the US and UK "supporting" Israel's attack on Lebanon (which is the subject of the STWC demo tomorrow) as being the yardstick then many other conflicts meet this criteria - in fact the majority of this list:

Colombia, Turkey, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Western Sahara, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal and Russia.

I will keep repeating this list for as long as people keep denying that these conflicts are a) ongoing and still killing people, b) that many of them are linked to the so-called "war on terror" and c) that most of them have US and UK "support" for either one side or another.

Obviously the STWC doesn't require US or UK troops on thre ground - there are none currently involved in the Israel-Lebanon conflict - in which case I fail to see why any of the proposed crietria don't extend to the whole long list of conflicts that I have provided.

The pathetic lack of knowledge and awareness of these other conflicts by many supposedly 'politically aware' people suggests that in fact what people are are consumers of Mc-politics and Mc-radicalism: they react purely to a mainstream media agenda (ie if the BBC shows a war then they constuct their whole world view and principles around this, if the war isn't shown by the BBC then it doesn't exist) and simply consume and regurgitate pre-packed 'radical' soundbites and analysis - so if the middle east and anti-american-imperialism is what they are given then this is the sole way they analyse world events.

This thread and the frankly fuckwitted level of ignorance displayed is a case in point.

 

[belboid]

Colombia, Turkey, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Laos, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Western Sahara, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal and Russia.

I will keep repeating this list for as long as people keep denying that these conflicts are a) ongoing and still killing people, b) that many of them are linked to the so-called "war on terror" and c) that most of them have US and UK "support" for either one side or another.

no one has denied a or c you disingenuous little boy. And you have yet to offer actual evidence to tie b to reality.

You are a liar, a coward, and a fool.

 

[TeeJay]

If Teejay is trying to make a point to broaden our activism to oppose all imperialist wars that the U|K government is complicit in then, fine.

It sounds more like an attempt to sabotage the necessary call for mass mobilisations against Israel's war on Lebanon.

Why does it sound like that then?

I even bothered to include the time and location of Saturday's demo.

I am not against people being against war if they mean it genuinely and apply it consistently.

I do not like, however, people who spout a load of bullshit, who hijack issues to further their own causes, who arbitrarly ignore conflcist and suffering and then start screaming about conflicts that don't even exist yet, while carrying a "stop war" banner...

...where is the consistency? Where are their principles?

I also believe that people can be against war yet not automatically buy into this whole neo-Marxist anti-imperialism analysis, moreover I also don't think that the only "offender" is a single global hegemon. Anyone who claims that all conflicts can be reduced down to american imperialism needs to pull their head out of the trotkyist arsehole and wake up to reality: there are a lot of abuses and conflcits fuelled by other groups, governments and ideologies and they don't all reduce down to US imperialism. But then again I am not a marxist or socialist of any kind so it isn't a surpirse that I don't buy into this bullshit.

 

[Fruitloop]

Imperialism is a feature of capitalism, not a feature of the United States.

 

[poster342002]

I think it might have something to do with the orientation of the SWP and liberals towards the "muslim community", and their attempts at recruiting from that constituency.

I wonder if there's any substance to this theory?

 

[belboid]

I am not against people being against war if they mean it genuinely and apply it consistently.

ooh, you are so kind, allowing us an opoinion. Thank you sire.

But then again I am not a marxist or socialist of any kind so it isn't a surpirse that I don't buy into this bullshit.

no, you just buy right wing liberal bullshit instead. In buckets.

 

[TeeJay]

here's my cynical take - because many of the places that you mention do not economically effect the UK in obvious ways the UK is not as interested in them. in the middle east the it affects such things as oil prices. it's also more local than most of the other wars mentioned. more people in the UK are from the middle east perhaps? it appears more relevant. the muslim and jewish communities who identify with their co-religionists to assorted degrees have voices and votes.

and the SWP are heavily involved in the STWC, which means that they'll use any excuse.

personally i'm just as unhappy about what is going on in somalia and sudan, but i don't see it all the time on the tv and internet and whatnot it's hard to maintain the righteous rage when you can't watch the blown up kids streamed directly to your desktop.

or is that argument not partisan and denigrating enough?

OK I understand the points you are making here, but it doesn't answer the question of why the STWC or other anti-war protestors are going along with either the 'economic interests' aspect, the 'personal ties' aspect or the 'its being shown on BBC' aspect.

It is one thing to think up excuses but I can't see how any of these can really wash for an anti-war organisation:

Either they are against one specific war and they stick with that (and be clear about it) or they should extend their concern to *all* wars.

Just think about other NGOs: anti-nuclear groups are against nuclear weapons *globally*. Amnesty International campaigns on human rights *globally*. Environmental groups either pick a specific subject or they campaign about these issues *globally*.

The STWC on the other hand seems to have some kind of hidden agenda where it only selects ceratin conflicts and only takes a certain angle on things...

...maybe the best explanation is that since it seems to say it is against the american "war on terror" then it does have a specific agenda rather than any wider principles or remit...

Presumably Russia, China or anyone other than the US fighting against 'terror' (be it islamist or otherwise) is irrelevant to the STWC. Presumably even parts of the US "war against terror" which happen outside the midle east (eg US supported actions in the Phillipines, SE Asia, Pakistan or Saharan Africa) are irrelevant to the STWC - although why these don't fall under their remit I am not clear.

If the STWC is in fact not an anti-war group but a political campaign with a far more narrow and anti-American-imperialist-war-against-middle-east-based-Islamists then I have a big issue with their name and the way they are presenting themselves as a wider anti-war movement.

Moreover, I don't think that people should be suckered into being part of the STWC if this is the case, and would far prefer to see a proper anti-war movement that had not been hijacked and was not being used by dishonest and sectarian interests in their own narrow interests and according to their own narrow agenda.

 

[belboid]

If the STWC is in fact not an anti-war group but a political campaign with a far more narrow and anti-American-imperialist-war-against-middle-east-based-Islamists then I have a big issue with their name and the way they are presenting themselves as a wider anti-war movement.

tough shit

 

[TeeJay]

The labour movement and left in genrral should be mobilising for mass demonstrations against this war.

Why can't "the labour movement and left in general" do so outside of the straightjacket of the STWC and its other agendas?

 

[TeeJay]

You're a dishonest little shit teejay - your question has been answered several times but you choose to ignore the answer, to justify your own right-wing support for the war against Iraq and for the current Israeli actins.

here, again, is the founding aime of the STWC:

" The aim of the Coalition should be very simple: to stop the war currently declared by the United States and its allies against 'terrorism'."

very simple, and very clear as to why it is opposing certain wars, but not others.

Now go away.

Belboid, this doesn't answer anything - "war against terror" applies just as much to pakistan and somalia (and to russian and chinese actions in their regions) as it does to lebanon.

The STWC is inconsistent even based on ther own criteria, and leaving aside my own views entirely.

I can't see what my view on the Iraq war has got to do with the question I have asked. Thank you for attempting to analyse the wider list of south and south-east asian, south american and african conflicts but it is clear that you are simply wrong to say that the US 'war against terrorism' doesn't extend outside the middle east - it clearly does. It also involves many other countries.

If the STWC coalition are going to include Lebanon then they should also include a whole list of other conflicts that meet exactly the same criteria.

 

[bluestreak]

Why can't "the labour movement and left in general" do so outside of the straightjacket of the STWC and its other agendas?

now that's a whole different question isn't it.

i guess that because the SWP have an agenda. they're not actually trying to save the world, they're trying to gain converts to their political message. many people piggyback their marches and whatnot because we want to stop ALL wars, but aren't going to sign up to their agenda. just the same as they will take credit for any community activism victories that one of their members happens to join in with.

a lot of people wouldn't touch the SWP but are blissfully unaware that they are well linked to the STWC, and a lot of people know but don't care. and the SWP doesn't represent the british left, only those amongst the left who have joined the SWP. the SWTC doesn't represent a labour movement either, btw.

 

[TeeJay]

You're a poor apologist for Bush, why cant you just admit it?

Where have I ever said I support Bush?

Is it because you're a coward, and a liar, and a fool.

I seems you are incapable of having a sensible discussion about the STWC.

I suggest that if you want to call people cunts you toddle off somewhere else. I am interested in having an intelligent discussion about this topic. I am not interested in trading abuse with you.

The fact that you are now simply throwing abuse around and not making any kind of coherent or substantive points suggests that you have nothing to say.

 

[TeeJay]

Hey cunt:

no one has denied a or c you disingenuous little boy. And you have yet to offer actual evidence to tie b to reality.

In fact there were various comments along the lines of 'there are no protests about north orea because there isn't a war with them yet'. The implication being that the lack of STWC protests about other wars was because they weren't happening.

You are a liar, a coward, and a fool.

Fuck off cunt.

There you go - you want abuse, so I'll oblige, cunt.

edit: So, cunt - do you think that me calling you a cunt in every post is going to add anything to this thread?

 

[Fruitloop]

I thought the reason North Korea was mentioned was because you brought up North Korea, where there isn't a war.

 

[belboid]

Belboid, this doesn't answer anything - "war against terror" applies just as much to pakistan and somalia (and to russian and chinese actions in their regions) as it does to lebanon.

you ever going to try and argue that point rather than simply asserting it? You are, I trust, aware of the difference. Unless you are simply arguing from a liberal 'they're all nasty' position, which is exactly what it looks like.

 

[belboid]

Hey cunt:In fact there were various comments along the lines of 'there are no protests about north orea because there isn't a war with them yet'. The implication being that the lack of STWC protests about other wars was because they weren't happening.Fuck off cunt.

There you go - you want abuse, so I'll oblige, cunt.

edit: So, cunt - do you think that me calling you a cunt in every post is going to add anything to this thread?

hehehe

Oh dear, teejay has been made to look a fool so blows his wee stack.

I shall now reassert the evidence for my earlier claim, viz, that you are a liar, fool and coward.

The liar part is based on you having had an elementary education and being able to read - humble apologies if that is not actually the case. If this is the case then you know that, for example, your above claim re North Korea is simply untrue - hence liar.

Fool - well the imbecility with which you repeat your specious claims about various 'wars' around the world (some of which arent even wars) as if it proved a point is fairly damned foolish, to say the least. The inability to differentiate between argument and assertion is another case in point.

Coward - well, you dont dare actually argue against the STWC on a principalled basis, you just try and dig up poor semi-semantic arguments (and then dont understand them)

Your response - to call me a 'cunt'.

Well, aah, diddums - you are a liar, a fool, and a coward.

 

[TeeJay]

I thought the reason North Korea was mentioned was because you brought up North Korea, where there isn't a war.

People were saying that it was reasonable that the STWC didn't have demos about wars which hadn't happened yet ... but this leaflet clearly references Syria and Iran.

I was saying that the STWC already talks about wars that haven't happened yet ... but it ignores ones (including US-linked 'war on terror' ones) which are already happening.

 

[TeeJay]

you ever going to try and argue that point rather than simply asserting it? You are, I trust, aware of the difference. Unless you are simply arguing from a liberal 'they're all nasty' position, which is exactly what it looks like.

So you want me to argue the point that the conflicts in pakistan and somalia are linked with the US "war on terror". I might was well mention ongoing conflicts in thailand, indonesia and the philippines as well while I am at it.

Are you seriously suggesting that they are *not* part of the US 'war on terror'?

Bizarre.