War or Peace in Afghanistan? - Meeting April 8th Brent Trades Hall

Rare chance to hear from 'Veterans for Peace' Monday February 11th at Brent Mencap

Brent Stop the War has held meetings and demonstrations about the cost of war in terms of victims' deaths, infrastructure destruction, environmental disaster and creation of refugees as well as the financial cost to the economy.

Monday's meeting will be a little different.  We will hear first-hand from an American and a British soldier, who are members of Veterans for Peace (UK), about the personal cost to them and their families, friends and neighbours of participation in these wars.  Their voices are not heard as much as they should be and BStW has organised this special meeting so that Brent residents can hear directly from veterans about what war has meant for them, the conclusions they have drawn from their experience and their resultant activism.

The meeting is on Monday February 11th 7.30pm to 9.15pm at Brent Mencap, 379-381 High Road, Willesden, London NW10 2JR  Nearest tube Dollis Hill (Jubilee line) and 260, 266, 297 bus routes.

Speakers: 

Julio Torres, Veterans for Peace (UK) New York born Torres was a member of the U.S.  Army for 11 years 2005-2016, including a year in Iraq, with the rank of Staff Sergeant.

Ben Griffin. Ben is an ex Paratrooper, SAS soldier and founder of  Veterans for Peace UK. He served in Northern Ireland, Macedonia, Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2005 he was released from army service after refusing to continue serving under American command in Iraq. Ben served as as national coordinator for VfP until 2018 and remains an active member.
 

Lucas: Syria action likely to provoke regime and escalate the conflict

COMMENTING on the announcement that Parliament is being recalled to discuss possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria, Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said:

“I’m pleased that Parliament has been recalled, and have long argued that MPs should be guaranteed a free (un-whipped) vote before any involvement in conflict.

“However, I have deep concerns about resorting to military action. While completely deploring the actions of Assad and his regime, and believing that all those responsible for war crimes should be referred to the International Criminal Court, it is by no means clear that military action will reduce suffering in the region.

“Our guiding principle now must be to do all we can to protect lives. When considering military intervention, we need to look at the balance of risks. Currently, there is no evidence that the most likely scenario – a symbolic missile strike on a key regime target – would have a deterrent effect on the Assad regime.  To the contrary, it seems at least as likely that it could act as a provocation to the regime, and lead to an escalation of the conflict, and greater harm to civilians.

“We need to learn from our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the UK supports or participates in military action, particularly before a full report from the UN weapons inspectors, our chances of working towards a diplomatic resolution would be seriously undermined.

“Given that Russia looks likely to block agreement at the Security Council, the legality of a military response is also in question.

“The UK should now redouble efforts to address the refugee crisis, particularly in Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Lebanon, and support all humanitarian efforts to reduce suffering.”

No attack on Syria: Protest Wednesday, Demonstrate Saturday

No attack on Syria

- Protest tomorrow 5pm, Wednesday 28 August, Downing Street, London
- National Demonstration: Saturday 31 August, 12 noon, Embankment, London

Britain, France and the US are committing to another disastrous military intervention. Apart from the inevitable casualties, any attack on Syria can only inflame an already disastrous civil war and would risk pulling in regional powers further.

Most people in this country have learnt from the disasters of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. According to a Telegraph/YouGov poll on Sunday only 9% of the British public would support troops being sent to Syria, and only 16% support sending more arms to the region. Our politicians however have learnt nothing.

Take action:

• Please share Wednesday's event with your Facebook contacts
• Support our campaign by making a donation today (details below)
  

We need the maximum level of protests to stop them plunging us in to yet another catastrophic war.

No attack on Syria

- Protest tomorrow 5pm, Wednesday 28 August, Downing Street, London
- National Demonstration: Saturday 31 August, 12 noon, Embankment, London

The national demonstration on Saturday will gather at Embankment (near Embankment tube) and march via Parliament and Downing Street, ending in Central London for a political rally to say No attack on Syria.

Please do not hesitate to contact the office on 020 7561 4830 or email office@stopwar.org.uk

 http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/get-involved/join-or-donate

What should we do about Syria?

The following is the text of a letter which Philip Grant sent jointly to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on 27 August, and which is produced here as a “guest blog” so that other readers can express their own views, if they wish to do so. As Parliament has been recalled to discuss Syria, Philip also copied it to Barry Gardiner MP, with the message: ‘I hope that, on this issue, you will not repeat the error of judgement you made in 2003 in supporting British military action in Iraq.’

 

Dear Mr Cameron and Mr Hague,

Why Britain should not take military action over Syria

I am writing to ask you to reconsider the action which several recent public statements and media reports suggest that you are about to commit this country to taking. Like you, I am appalled by the apparent use of chemical weapons in Syria, particularly against civilians, but the use by Britain and/or its allies of military action in this conflict will not solve Syria’s problems, and is more likely to make matters in the Middle East worse rather than better.

The current situation in Syria is, like all armed conflicts, terrible for the people caught up in it, but it is a civil war, and does not directly involve, or threaten, the United Kingdom. Like all such conflicts, atrocities have occurred, and have probably been committed by groups on both sides. Civil wars are awful events and take a long time to heal, but they have to be resolved by the people of the countries that they affect. England’s own eight year civil war in the 1640’s was followed by more than ten years of discord and dictatorship, before the return of the monarchy and parliamentary government. The Ottoman Empire did not get involved in our civil war, and there was no reason why it should – it was a long distance away, and our conflict had nothing to do with a country in the eastern Mediterranean. Although there are much better communications in the 21^st century than in the 17^th, the principle is still the same.

Have our involvement in the Iraq war from 2003, in Afghanistan since 2001 and more recently in the Libyan civil conflict, meant that those countries now enjoy peace, stability and democracy? The honest answer is “No”. Not only that, our own and the US’s military involvement in those countries has seen the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, some as a direct result of high-tech weapons being directed at the “wrong” targets, or even worse, because of deliberate action by over-zealous service personnel. There is no way that our military involvement in the Syrian conflict would not cause more unnecessary deaths.

This country was wrong, and in breach of international law, to attack Iraq without the full approval of the United Nations in 2003. It would be equally wrong to get involved, with allies but again without a clear resolution approved by the UN Security Council, in any military action against the Assad government or any other group in Syria. That approval will not be forthcoming, because of the “checks and balances” built into the UN system. Those “balances” are not a bad thing, because one country engaging in military action against another sovereign country which is not at war with it is something which the international community rightly wishes to avoid, unless there is absolutely no alternative.

I am sure you feel that Britain has to do something, and I agree. It should continue to speak out against any atrocities, and support all efforts to get them properly investigated, so that whoever commits them can be brought before a proper court in due course, either within Syria or at the international court, to be tried for their crimes. It should do everything it can to support humanitarian work to help those affected by the conflict, both refugees in neighbouring countries and, where possible, those displaced and suffering within Syria. It should encourage all sides to cease fighting and try to resolve their differences by discussion and agreement, for the sake of their own fellow Syrians.

What Britain should not do is to use any of its weapons and armed forces, or to support or encourage others to use theirs, to attack any targets within Syria. If we were to go down that road, where would it stop? Assume that the US navy (and our own?) were to fire several hundred cruise missiles at so-called military targets in Syria. Damage would be done, people would be killed, but would that make the various sides in the civil war stop fighting? And if it did not, what action would “the allies” take next? How many more people would die, and how long would we continue to take such action, before this extra destruction ended? 

What damage would also be done to Britain’s relations with other countries around the world, and what further instability and conflict might such action trigger in the Middle East?

Please listen to this common sense advice from an ordinary British citizen and voter, and resist the temptation to take “the military option”.

Marking 10 years of Brent Stop the War

Many thanks to Brent News Company TV for this report:

Hear Tony Benn on Afghanistan - Tuesday Willesden Green Library

Tony Benn, President of the Stop the War Coalition, will be speaking tomorrow Tuesday October 4th on 10 YEARS ON...STILL AT WAR IN AFGHANISTAN alongside John Hilary, Director of War on Want. Sheila Robin will speak on Ten Years of Brent Stop the War.

The meeting, organised by Brent Stop the War, will be at Willesden Green Library, 95 High Road, Willesden, NW10 2SF 7.30pm

Rethink Afghanistan - film and discussion

War, Peace and the Middle East - Question Time

Greens are the REAL alternative

"....But the bigger political picture, in the wake of the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s, won't get a look in. That's partly because over some of the crucial controversies, the public is on one side of the argument and the political class on the other.

"That's the case with the war in Afghanistan, the cossetting of bankers, privatisation of public services and tax privileges for the weathy, for instance. The main parties in England support them, so most voters will have no choice."

So said Seumas Milne, writing in yesterday's Guardian summing up the cosy consensus amongst the three main parties.  The Green Party does hold sharply different positions on these issues and if you are lucky enough to live in Brent you can vote for them:

• AFGHANISTAN - We are for withdrawal of our troops and a regional peace process
• BANKERS - We want reform of the finance sector, separation of retail and investment banking and a 'Robin Hood' tax on international  financial transactions
• PRIVATISATION -We are opposed to the privatisation and deregulation of services and would end PFI schemes 
• TAXES ON THE WEALTHY - We would increase taxes on the wealthy, close loopholes and have a special permanent tax on bankers' bonuses