The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear John, ----- Original Message ----- From: <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [casi] Iraq - what next? In response to Tim Buckley >In any case, assuming, as you do, that war is inevitable, virtually >guarantees that the war will take place while protesting government policy, >carrying out civil disobedience, etc, which have been shown to be effective >anti-war tools in recent history, may, given a sufficiently broad nase of >support, prevent an attack on Iraq. >I am not asking anyone else to change what they are doing. I am not asking >others to assume that war is inevitable. But you claim that it is. If everyone acted on that basis there would be no ant-war activity whatever, hence war would be virtually inevitable. >I am making that assumption, although I may be wrong. It takes time to >come >up with alternatives. >If you believe that I am that influential that in merely considering what >might happen I am "virtually guarantee[ing] that the war will take place" >then you think I am more influential than I do. What I said was: "In any case, assuming, as you do, that war is inevitable, virtually guarantees that the war will take place..." If we all acted as you are doing, the war would be virtually inevitable. >why don't you speak out against it >I have made my position on invasion clear. I am against an invasion with >250,000 troops resulting in Iraq being effectively a colony of the USA (or >UK, or any other country). That is hardly an anti-war position. Are you in favour of some other type of military intervention by Britain and the US, eg military support for an "uprising" in the countryside? >and carry out civil disobedience? >What civil disobedience are you talking about? What, for instance, are you >doing? Work with the anti-war group "Voices in the Wilderness." I was arrested at a protest at UK nuclear submarine base at Faslane, a few months ago, have attended several demonstrations at which I have carried out civil disobedience soince, have signed the Pledge of Resistance committing myself to civil disobedience in the event of an attack on Iraq and will be attending an arrestable demonstration at Northwoods military base in North London in the next few weeks. The more people do it, the more expensive it becomes for the state to wage it's war. >Your approach clearly makes you an accomplice in this. >There is no logic to this argument. Nothing personal, John, but if you accept that war is inevitable, when there are ways you can resist it and you seek to work with the attacker, albeit in a humanitarian way, then you are complicit in the attack. >Do you have any business or economic interest in the outcome of the >attack >on Iraq? >I have no business links with Iraq. I have no direct business or economic >interest in the outcome of an attack on Iraq. In one sense everyone has an >indirect interest in the outcome of an attack on Iraq. If, for instance, >oil prices hit $40 for a period of time then there will be a second >recession and a number of people reading this mailing list will lose their >jobs. I probably won't although I may have to make people redundant if >that >happens. One thing I do is sell flowers. There will be fewer flowers sold >if there is a further recession. >In your statement you say "the attack on Iraq". In making that statement >you - like myself - are assuming there will be some form of attack on Iraq. I'd say it's likely but not inevitable. >Clearly you don't see any merit in considering what may be done to make >such >an attack less of a problem than it could be. I do, actually. But in the context of passive acceptance of the inevitability of war such considerations are just part of a pro-war argument, an argument for a "humanitarian" war, which is a contradiction in terms. >I am worried that the Pentagon are not thinking about the impact on Iraqis. >Clearly you have more confidence in the Pentagon than I do. No, probably less. I doubt whether the Pentagon or the MOD will take a blind bit of notice of you. But of course I do support any attempt to influence these agencies in a humanitarian direction. The point is that unless we oppose this imperialist war, rather than simply accepting it as inevitable, then we are all supporting, tacitly or otherwise, a massacre. >Given that your initial assumtion that war is inevitable is false, >It is, however, an assumption that you make yourself in the statement "the >attack on Iraq." The statement "the attack on Iraq" does not mean "the inevitable attack on Iraq". It is you who used the word "inevitable". Best wishes, Tim _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk