WAR PROTEST

Preacher Nathan Knight, I'm sorry for quoting you out of context. The point I was making was that protest has a long and noble tradition both in the OT and NT; I do not believe that prayer is always enough - James' letter makes that clear.

To try and answer Sue's question on the last page, ie why we should stop protesting now that war has started, I can do a lot worse than reproduce this article by Armando Ianucci for last Friday's Daily Telegraph, which I think carries more weight because it is from a right-wing newspaper. With apologies to the mods and everyone else - I can't give you a URL because the article is password senstive, so here it is in full:-

Last ditch
By Armando Iannucci
(Filed: 28/03/2003)


I wish our forces well: I'd just rather they didn't die because of a hunch

"Now that the war's started it's important we back our forces 100 per cent."

No, that argument will not do. To be expected to leap from outright opposition to this war to a sudden but total backing for what our boys and girls are doing in Iraq defies all the laws of logic.

Ordering them into battle doesn't resolve all previous arguments; it simply ignores them. Otherwise, one might as well have argued that it was every American's duty to back the Vietnam War 100 per cent once it started, or that, indeed, it's the honourable thing for every Iraqi to swing behind their government now that they face an invading force. (It seems that quite a lot of our military strategy heavily relies on this last hypothesis not being the case.)

Maybe we should have thought more kindly of any German 60 years ago who thought: "I don't necessarily agree with the views of the Nazis, but now they're fighting a war on all fronts it's my duty to back them 100 per cent."

And, of course, we would have to demand total approval from Israelis for the actions of Ariel Sharon and 100 per cent backing from the Palestinians for their suicide bombers.

Now that's just silly, you might say; the point is, opinion polls now show the majority of British opinion has shifted in support of the war, so isn't it now time you, too, fell into line?

No, not unless you want my support to be the support of someone prepared to let his moral viewpoint be dictated by public opinion. That support would be worthless, so I'm staying where I am, and I simply think most of you are now wrong. You are wrong, even if we win, even if we "liberate" Iraq, and even if we find chemical weapons.

Because, in opposing this war, I'm not suggesting, as you might like to think I am, that Saddam is a good man, that he has nothing to hide, or that Iraqis do not suffer under his rule. All I'm saying is that we haven't fully exhausted the possibilities of resolving all this by other means.

So, if chemical weapons are found, and this is trumpeted by the Government as justification for the war, remember that the whole point of the weapons inspectors was to go in and search for these weapons in the first place.

While the inspectors were in Iraq, and while the world stared at Iraq's every move, such weapons, if they existed, could never have posed a serious threat. This argument hasn't yet been disproved.

We have to deal with realities, you might argue back, and the reality is that we are now at war, and we mustn't do anything to demoralise and endanger our forces. The only problem with this argument is that it assumes I (or Melanie Phillips or Rod Liddle) am anything other than one of 1,000 totally insignificant professional squawkers crowing every morning at breakfast.

In the heat of battle, is a British soldier going to check up on what I or David Aaronovitch has to say about how the war's going? Is a battalion going to be downhearted because Jeremy Hardy is not pro-war on The News Quiz?

I think that what is more likely to affect their morale is how well the case has been put for doing what they have been asked to do. And it still hasn't been put very well. So, in case you get me wrong, I wish our forces well. It's just I'd rather they didn't die.

Those who do die, die tragically, because such a death is a true waste of life, a life extinguished as a result of a hunch, a political whim in the face of firmer, less violent alternatives.

Our soldiers are sent into danger on a throw of a die, which is why it is important that, as they get killed or injured, this criminal and casual waste is emphasised, rather than forgotten in the excitement of war.


Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Why can't you do both?

 

Here, here. (Matt and Mike both pass out in amazement at agreeing with each other! )

YOurs in Christ

Matt

 

The only effective protest is the VOTE. We protested Clinton's methods of dealing with terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Cole, and the embassy bombings by voting in Bush.

The majority of America has "protested" by voting in the last election. Now we are seeing the minority protest in the street because they lost the last election. They can protest again at the next election and we will see what America thinks is "right" at that time.

Until then realize that the majority of America is standing firm behind our President and our "Christian roots" way of thinking.

God Bless George Bush and may Saddam see the light, at least shortly before being killed.

 

I'm afraid the only light Saddam's going to see is from a muzzle flash.

 

Those who still think diplomacy can work in Iraq are in a state of denial. How does diplomacy work with those who force women and children into harms way for propaganda purposes? How many women and children in Iraq travel alone in vans?

Wake up! Iraqi military leaders are vicious killers, supporting an even more vicious leader, and those who are bashing our president are supporitng that leader.

Those who are bashing Presidint Bush are supporting a leader even more vicious.

War is never popular, but at times it is neccessary.

 

Abiyah, with apologies for the delay, here's the full text of the article from our Daily Mirror on Monday (I still don't know why the URL doesn't work):-

Gulf War 2: Her name was Sarah.. and whether she was killed by an American or Iraqi missile, this insane war is to blame Mar 31 2003


BRIAN READE on madness of so-called 'liberation'

Brian Reade


SHE could be asleep. In her flannel pyjama bottoms and 101 Dalmatians top, her eyes gently closed, little Sarah looks like any other seven-year-old.

Except she is lying on a stainless steel mortuary tray, another victim of this bloody war.

She had just finished breakfast and was playing with her brother and sisters on Friday when her life was violently stolen.

Her mum Shafaa was washing the dishes, happy that her Baghdad home was ringing to the sound of children's laughter, until a huge explosion knocked her to the floor. After the shock had subsided, she saw "blood splattered against the walls" and her four babies lying silently in the rubble.

As she tried to wake them, she discovered that shrapnel had taken off the back of Sarah's head and half the face of her son Karrad, six. Both were dead. Her two other babes, three-year-old son Sajad and two-year-old daughter, Sajud, were taken to hospital and are yet to wake up.

So Shafaa spent yesterday in intensive care watching two infants fight for their lives, while her two other children lay in a cold mortuary in another part of the city.

Unlike all the other little Sarahs you know, this one didn't get to give her mum a crayoned Mother's Day card and a big hug. No chocolates and kisses for this mum. Just unfathomable pain and a howling rage.

Shafaa said: "My tears are strangled in my eyes. They will not gush.

THEY are burning my soul and will stay inside me as a constant reminder of my anger towards Americans and British who did this to my babies."

As usual, the Iraqis blamed coalition bombs and our apologists said it may have been stray Iraqi anti-aircraft missiles. But Shafaa doesn't care. It was you and me who started this war and it us who stole away her flesh and blood.

British mothers who lose their children in this conflict get them back in coffins draped in Union Jacks as brass bands play them off the plane. Feted for their courage and honoured for their sacrifice.

But this is how we treat the Iraqi mothers who lose their children. With contempt, disdain and the cowardly, de-humanising epitaph: Collateral damage.

During the Second World War, Mahatma Gandhi said: "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the name of liberty and democracy?" Sixty years on, the world asks the question again.

Sarah is the reality of a mad war which gets madder by the day. She is the truth about the "solid progress" Donald Rumsfeld tells us our forces are making.

Her pathetic image is the reason people say the illegal carnage should not be going on in the good name of the British people. Let us not hide from the truth her mother articulates with such venom. We killed her children, because we pay the wages of our armed forces.

AND we voted in the government which sent them to supposedly protect our interests in a futile war against a people who pose no threat.

Sarah cuts through all the empty rhetoric from the hawks in suits that we are a caring military machine, hell-bent on avoiding civilian casualties. She is the end-game of the lost resolutions, the plagiarised dossiers and our dirty little invasion.

She is, we are told, the price worth paying to topple Saddam Hussein, when we all know in our hearts and minds that she just isn't.

What lessens the severity of the crime when we kill a Sarah in Baghdad not Birkenhead?

Our politicians say the former is excusable because we are on a moral crusade in a dark land. Look at Sarah and ask yourself where the morality is? They say we are doing this to give Iraqi children their freedom. Tell me the freedom Sarah will enjoy?

What a way to liberate people from a barbaric and terrifying regime, by delivering our own brand of terror and barbarity. What a way to impose our standards on the world. Gandhi also said, when asked what he felt about Western civilisation: "Yes, I think it would be a good idea."

How can any of us look at Sarah with what is left of her brother's head between her tiny feet and believe that we are bringing civility to the Iraqi people?

Those of us who are against this insane war are often told we are lucky to live in a country were dissent is tolerated.

Well the next time you tuck up your little girl in her Disney pyjamas, remember she lies on a bed not a mortuary slab because she is lucky enough to be born in a country which doesn't need liberating and civilising by Britain and America.


Daily Mirror 31/03/03

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I am a veteran who worked in the intelligence community when I did my stint in the USAF.

Judging from the words and accounts of this administration, the president has more than just a hunch about Saddam and his connection to terror schools and campaigns and their equipping.

Given enough time, the little girl in her Disney pajamas just might lie on a mortuary slab dead from a lung full of poison gas.

After the 9/11 atrocity the president has decided to preempt that possibility. Many little girls and boys went to bed that night missing one or both parents lying on slabs or simply disintegrated.

Like it or not the Scripture supports the right of a government to protect its citizens.
Yes innocents will die in war.

I agree with President Bush and support his decision and his reasoning.

Better to face it there at the source now than here at the target later.


HankD

 

Too true..

War is bloody and unfortunately innocent people will die. Protesters need start to look at the big picture. The next generation of people will have a much better life and be much happier in Iraq.
Yes, it does suck for this generation to be the one that has to go through this war but their children’s children will be so thankful.
The violent protesters are a bunch of hypocrites! “Peace peace’ they shout as they get sprayed with pepper spray due to rioting.
I wonder what would happen if the war did stop because of all the protesting, America would be known as a weak nation that welcomes terrorist attacks and are to chicken to do anything about it. We would probably have a terrorist attack every year.
Don’t they understand that?
They should use all that time to witness to people as someone stated earlier. I wish they would stop protesting and do it the right way…
Write your congressman.

 

People protest because they are rebels wanting ot express themselves as they when children. who threw temper tantrums.

Is there one single protester who has a better solution? I think not!

 

really? what research have you done on this issue?

 

Well In Him I haven't heard any protesters oming up with any ideas on how to come to any other solution! Perhaps instead of running your mouth against our military you can offer a solution to our leaders. Ignoring a butcher won't work, diplomacy has failed, Saddam has ignored UN resolutions, so all wise and knowing In Him give us the answer.

 

so you don't that people should protest things that they feel are morally wrong?

there are numerous alternatives to war - here are some links to a few:

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_alterntves.htm
http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/iraq/resources.htm
http://www.nd.edu/~krocinst/media/iraq.html

 

If Oz was a democratic country I'ld think about protesting, however little johnny has decided to be Dubya's lap dog and he is taking the rest of us along wether like it or not. Also I'ld rather do something that gets results, or at least has a chance to, like get next Sunday school lesson and puppet show ready.

At the moment I almost think I'll still be grumbling about George's war when I'm stuck in a nursing home at 105

Pete

 

Hi all,
Hi Inhim and Matt ( my neighboor!!),
(it is interesting that people against war i meet on englishspeaking chats & forums are always from UK!)

i don't want to argue about the war in Iraq (i am french ok, but i am christian before all and happy to meet other christian here!!!!)

Sue asks somewhere: "Most of the posters on this board who are still protesting the war are from other countries. Why is that?"
A possible answer (well 2 actually):

1) there is a cultural reason. In Europe, people are more pacific, perharps because of the special history we have (many wars). In the USA, you are use to have weapons. In france, and I think in europe in general, it is impossible that christian use guns.
Also remerber that Iraq is much more nearer from europe than USA (we already had enough terrorist attack in france, long before you in the USA. So again? No thank you!!)

2)There is an other reason: the media don't deserve the war in iraq on the same way in europe and in the USA; In France, they only show the bad sides, the bad effect on the population... so people can only be against it.
I think in the USA it is the contrary!
It is interesting to see that english people are mostly against that war, even if the newspaper criticise the french position (well, i did not read, but I was told).

This last point always remebers me how media can manipulate us. (i mean in general)

God bless you
cerise

 

Dear Cerise,
You made a number of great points!
My husband travels extensively in the UK and sometimes in France.
Sometimes he watches Fox News on the satellite and sometimes he watches the BBC. You wouldn't know the same war was being described. We are all more susceptible to media influence than we like to think.

Karen