The Royal Mail Strike: A Social Consequence of the War in Iraq?

[bdw]

From the calendar:

Tuesday 16th of October 2007

The Royal Mail Strike: A Social Consequence of the War in Iraq?

The St Andrews Stop the War Coalition on Tuesday 16th October at 7pm presents representatives from the Stop the War Coalition and the Communication Workers Union (CWU) to discuss the issue of "The Royal Mail Strike: A Social Consequence of the War in Iraq?" It will be held downstairs in Aikmans (the Cellar Bar).


2003: questionable interpretation of the casus belli principle
2004
2005
2006
2007: Grandma's Xmas card arrives late

Not seeing the causative link. Anyone care to explain the rationale behind this?

[munchingfoo]

Societies/stopthewar/30444

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[iab2]

I hear this influential group will, after the talk, be trading belt buckles.

[hr]

http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/104233.html

[Frank]

Quoting iab2 from 18:23, 15th Oct 2007
I hear this influential group will, after the talk, be trading belt buckles.

In a top secret location out of town?

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[David Bean]

I heard they were planning a follow-up entitled "Non-Sequiturs: a Psychological Consequence of the Anglo-American War of 1812?".

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Power Metal Dom]

I'm a newly elected member of the STW committee and even I don't know where the idea for this talk came from! However it doesn't say there IS a link merely inviting people to state their opinion IF there is or isn't a link. Fair enough right after all that's sort of the whole point of a discussion.

Also munchingfoo I don't appreciate that you think the society deserves a messageboard less than any other society. As if it matters whether you or anyone thinks a society needs a board or not. If you think it's needless is it so difficult to just....not post on it?

[hr]

Like flames on fuel...upon metal I drool

[munchingfoo]

Well perhaps you could answer some questions.

Which war do you want to stop? We are not at war with anyone.

If you want a troop withdrawl from Iraq, how do you think this will affect the Iraqi populous?

Afghanistan is under a NATO force, but still, how would it affect the afgans if we just withdrew?

I didn't want to go to war with Iraq, I thought it a pointless waste of life and a horrible, perhaps illegal, move by the government, but its a little late to be saying "the war is wrong". We must now consider, "what is the right thing to do". Do you believe that withdrawing british troops tomorrow would actually decrease the rate of life loss and/or increase stability in the middle east?

Perhaps a more suitable debate would have been "What would be the best strategy in Iraq?" rather than some rubbish about postal strikes. (Don't get me wrong, its a funny debate title, but tasteless on such a serious topic.)

If indeed you are of above average intellect, I suspect you are, then you would perhaps see your goal as a phased withdrawl from Iraq. From what I hear this is (and has always been) the governments current aim, so what else do you propose them do?

You see, its not that I don't think you deserve a message board, its that I don't think you deserve a society.



[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[munchingfoo]

So I guess I also have a further concluding question:

What is the goal of the "stop the War Society"?




[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[munchingfoo]

So I guess I also have a further concluding question:

What is the goal of the "stop the War Society"?




[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[exnihilo]

Quoting munchingfoo from 00:23, 16th Oct 2007From what I hear this is (and has always been) the governments current aim.

Oh dear, I feel a Bernard Woolley moment coming on, "with respect, Sir Humphrey, it can't always have been the current aim..."

[Daniel]

Quoting munchingfoo from 00:23, 16th Oct 2007Perhaps a more suitable debate would have been "What would be the best strategy in Iraq?" rather than some rubbish about postal strikes. (Don't get me wrong, its a funny debate title, but tasteless on such a serious topic.)

We had that yesterday, at 7, in School II where had a panel of interesting speakers debating the issue. Please try to keep up.

Really, I think this is just an excuse to get someone from the CWU up to talk about the strikes that just happens to be organised and paid-for by Stop the War.

Just my £0.02

Daniel

[Power Metal Dom]

Vice Prez Dan says it all but in addition 'foo the very fact that the society has hundreds of members seems to imply that the society has a right to exist. Since you're clearly so upset and bothered by STW why not attend one of the society's events and discuss your issues with the committee instead of useless Sinner rants? We'd be more than happy for a chat and you can even bring your soap box with you

[hr]

Like flames on fuel...upon metal I drool

[jequirity]

I'm curious as well, what is the goal of this society?

[hr]

LEEERRRROYYYY!!!!

Andrew W K Day 9th of May

[munchingfoo]

Quoting exnihilo from 01:14, 16th Oct 2007

Quoting munchingfoo from 00:23, 16th Oct 2007From what I hear this is (and has always been) the governments current aim.

Oh dear, I feel a Bernard Woolley moment coming on, "with respect, Sir Humphrey, it can't always have been the current aim..."

I should perhaps have been a little clearer, but it wasn't hard to guess that I meant "since the invasion of iraq" this has been their current aim.

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[mhuzzell]

Clue's in the name

[hr]

I FOUND JESUS... he was behind the couch the whole time!

[munchingfoo]

My post of 00:23 was not a rant, but my explanation for my previous actions. You'll have noticed that it contained some questions that could perhaps change my (and the many others who have no idea what your aim is) opinion on your society.

I'd have thought that, as a committee member (and vice prez - welcome to the discussion), you'd have jumped at the chance to defend your society with reason rather than deflection.

Just so you don't have to read my post again I will list the questions again.

Which war do you want to stop?

If you want a troop withdrawl from Iraq, how do you think this will affect the Iraqi populous?

Do you believe that withdrawing british troops tomorrow would actually decrease the rate of life loss and/or increase stability in the middle east?

If indeed you are of above average intellect, I suspect you are, then you would perhaps see your goal as a phased withdrawl from Iraq. From what I hear this is (and has always been)[sic] the governments current aim, so what else do you propose them do?

and most importantly

What is the goal of the "stop the War Society"?


In response to your further point, having hundreds of members isn't really a good indicator of rational thinking behind a government policy changing group (I think - but I don't know what your main aim is) in a town of thousands of people.

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[martyns]

The goal of the stop the war society is, as mhuzzell said, is implied within the name - ie to stop the war, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. With regards to Iraq, be of no doubt that there is certainly a war going on. Try telling the 170 military families that have lost loved ones, that there is no war going on and see what they say. The troops on the whole do not want to be there, the british population does not want them there and a majority want them to come home now. Even in America 60% want the troops to be withdrawn. In Iraq I read that 72% of the people want the occupying forces to leave, and so they should. A clear and specific timetable should be drawn up now, rather than when political expedience or opportunity dictate, and the society wishes that all troops are out of Iraq within 6months. This is one of the goals of the aims of the st andrews stop the war coalition.

We would like to see the troops come home if possible, to their loved ones, and not sent straight into Afghanistan or in particular Iran, which has for a long time been threatened with invasion. This is our second goal - no war on Iran.

Our third goal is to ensure that trident is not replaced. How can we be so hypocritical as to denounce some states e.g. Iran with nuclear ambitions, when we plan to spend 25billion on a weapons system that should never and hopefully will never be used. We call for multilateral and if necessary unilateral nuclear disarmament and an end to nuclear proliferation. This is our third aim.

Although these are our key goals, we also campaign against the erosion of civil liberties, which have followed the war on terror and we wish to see an end the arms trade.

I hope this is a sufficient explanation (it certainly seems long enough) as to the goal of the society. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to pose them.

[Fozzy Bear]

I think the point that is being made is the United Kingdom has not declared war on any country so is technically not at war with anyone. If we are not at war with anyone, how do you intend to stop something which is not happening.

There is an armed conflict ongoing in the areas you stated, but no declaration of war currently exists between the UK and any other nation.

Congratulations, you're society has achieved it's aims.[img]littleicons/raisebrow.gif[/img]

[Frank]

Quoting martyns from 18:15, 16th Oct 2007
The goal of the stop the war society is, as mhuzzell said, is implied within the name - ie to stop the war, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. With regards to Iraq, be of no doubt that there is certainly a war going on. Try telling the 170 military families that have lost loved ones, that there is no war going on and see what they say. The troops on the whole do not want to be there, the british population does not want them there and a majority want them to come home now. Even in America 60% want the troops to be withdrawn. In Iraq I read that 72% of the people want the occupying forces to leave, and so they should. A clear and specific timetable should be drawn up now, rather than when political expedience or opportunity dictate, and the society wishes that all troops are out of Iraq within 6months. This is one of the goals of the aims of the st andrews stop the war coalition.

We would like to see the troops come home if possible, to their loved ones, and not sent straight into Afghanistan or in particular Iran, which has for a long time been threatened with invasion. This is our second goal - no war on Iran.

I take an extremely dim view of the approach that appears to be treating the military like a democracy. What servinng military personel want and what they get are things that are extremely dependent upon the military situation at the time...not how much loved ones would rather they weren't in the business of being in the military.

Nor is that they're in danger a good reason to prevent the military doing it's job. There are better reasons to do that (like objecting to any aggressive military itself).

Particularly statements like

"Try telling the 170 military families that have lost loved ones, that there is no war going on and see what they say. The troops on the whole do not want to be there,"

"A clear and specific timetable should be drawn up now, rather than when political expedience or opportunity dictate,"

and

"see the troops come home if possible, to their loved ones, and not sent straight into "

seem to represent, to me, a very poor understanding of what the military actually does. The second point: Why is opportunity not to be considered? Given that politics overwhemlingly is what you're using as an argument to bring them home how can 'political expedience or opportunity dictating' be much different to 'get them home as quickly and safely as possible and in such a way that it's best for everyone'.

That is: Surely political expedience and opportunity are the only reasonable grounds to bring home the troops unless you object to the whole damned thing. And if you object to the whole damn thing, is it not the case then there's a far larger problem than the civil war in Iraq? Indeed: Are you really caring for the troops if:
a) you're bringing them home before the job is done (before expedience or opportunity allows it)
b) You're trying to change what they probably signed up to do (and if they signed up expecting not to go to war is it really proper to be getting them out of that situation in such a manner?)

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that, as explained, there are graves holes in 'the Stop the War'Soc's aims.

An important note

I typically find face to face discussion to be far less informative than discussion in places like these. Lot's of people lie face to face and it's much easier to be skeptical and analytical about things when you don't need to worry about people being supremely charismatic speakers etc.

That is: Pointless debating and ranting doesn't happen often in places like this. Fruitless, yes...of course many arguments and debates are fruitless, but I don't think that's suitable reason to neglect such discussions, especially when there aren't strict comparisons relating all the merits/downsides of the two (face to face vs 'online').

In all those regards I'd be very keen to see conversation of this ilk continue.

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[David Bean]

Frank makes some extremely good points in that post above. In particular, why on earth are you arguing that there should be a timetable to bring troops home "now... rather than when... opportunity dictate(s)"? Do you really mean that you agree we can't really take the troops out now and have the situation be safe, but we should go ahead and do it anyway?

What I want to know is, has anyone asked the people in Iraq who want the allied troops out how they think they're going to deal with the consequences of their no longer being there - whether they really think it'll make them safer? Could it be that their response to the question is more an emotional than a rational one, and mightn't the same apply to the public in the US and the UK? Frank is correct that what the military personnel themselves want shouldn't be all that important to military planning (I'm not saying morale isn't a factor, but after all none of these people were conscripts), but there's an extent to which we have to say that what the people of Iraq, the US and the UK as a whole want can't be given all that much sway either, particularly at a time when the government of Iraq itself is working together with the allied goivernments to come up with a timetable for withdrawal that can be acceptable to all parties. What do you say to them - do their views not matter?

What bothers me most about all this, however, is the way you just casually tack on Afghanistan to the argument, as though it were simply another facet of the same issue. Now I supported the invasion of Iraq; I may not have done so had I known then what I know now, but I did, and nonetheless could always see reason in the argument that going to war was the wrong thing to do. But to oppose the action that was taken against the illegal regime in Afghanistan I find truly disturbing. These people harboured and trained terrorists who murdered civillians by the thousand, and their government was one of the most oppressive against their own people in the history of the world. They'd reduced the women of the country to a status worse than that of the Imperial Russian serfs, and these people - the Taliban - are still out there, still trying to claw their way back to power so that they can once again impose their vile hatred on their own civillians, and do the best they can to project the same chaos across the world. How could anyone not utterly blinded by dogma possibly suggest that this war was not just, or that we ought simply to slip away and let the Taliban once again do as they pleased? The mentality of it I find impenetrable, and the act of trying to promote such a view, poisonous.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7