Here's my analysis and some suggestions for more effective campaigning against the war.

We recognise that this war as wrong, illegal, immoral and unjustified and that the UK-US gung-ho gang's pre-emptive strike sets a dangerous precedent for the World which will increase acts of terrorism. Blair is supporting the ultra-right administrations of Bush and Sharon and has severely damaged the authority of the UN and other international organisations.

We know this because we have campaigned against this war and followed the issues, but can we achieve more? We have far better arguments - Blair's government has repeatedly lied to drum up support, Blair and Bush are war criminals, no WMDs have been found, Iraq cannot be linked to terrorism, carpet bombing continues, almost forgot that the war's for oil (and the petro-dollar), etc, etc.

I recognise the media as a huge problem. I do not accept the reports of opinion polls - they simply do not correspond to the response I get when I speak to people about the issues. But what is clear is that people are very poorly informed about the issues. The media tends not to provide analysis and instead simply regurgitates Downing St spin. Are sanctions ever mentioned? Where is the analysis of Blair in relation to Bush's "we are fighting tourism, avenging 911"? There is very little historical or international context. How can we change that?

Blair, Campbell and Mandy (Mandelson) are extremely effective at media management/manipulation and I suggest that is where we should concentrate our efforts. It is worth looking at how New Labour's spin machine operates and there is plenty available online on this issue - just search for some terms like New Labour, media management, Mandelson, etc. You will notice that Labour's communications are highly centralised and great efforts are expended to keep MPs "on message". See for example  http://www.catalystforum.org.uk/pubs/pub3a.html,  http://www.labour-watch.com/spin.htm,  http://slate.msn.com/id/97897/

The media generally is currently reporting that Blair is popular as a result of this war. Let's change that. I believe that Blair is hugely unpopular in the Labour party due to huge opposition to the war. Let's build on that. Since Blair rules the Labour party centrally, he is the target. We all know of course that the Labour party is not only Blair, that there is the cabinet, Lords and all the cronies that he has appointed. But he is the target. Without Blair's support, the Yanks may not ever have gone to war. He's adored in the States. Let's kick him out to show them how much he's hated here. Let's try him for war crimes.

Back to the media. The media is manipulated very effectively by the New Labour spin machine but that control is not complete. Internet newsgroups (also known as 'usenet') promise a very effective way of getting our arguments across. Newsgroups are monitored by governments, journalists and other agencies worldwide. You might need to do some research to see how they work. I suggest that appropriate newsgroups are uk.politics, uk.politics.parliament, uk.politics.electoral, us.politics and alt.war although war discussions are appearing in all sorts of newsgroups. Take a look at some of these newsgroups. I suggest that you post well-researched arguments only - notice how the other side resort to personal attacks because their argument is so weak (just ignore them). Quote sources in your postings - look how others argue well.

We are able to keep well informed by using the internet - news monitoring services, foreign newspapers, news search engines, etc. Take a look at this
 http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,6263430,00.html - anyone seen that report in our newspapers? It's necessary to stay well informed to be effective in the newsgroups.

My local anti-war group will be starting a new tactic today. We will be using wallpaper to write a big bold "headline" and hand out copies of the story printed from the internet in support. For example, our "headline" could be "SYRIA COULD BE NEXT, WARNS WASHINGTON - SUNDAY'S OBSERVER" with a handout of  http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,935943,00.html. The idea is to have a seperate headline each day. Another could be "US TROOPS ATTACK AMBULANCE KILLING 2 INJURING 3" with a handout from  http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,6263430,00.html. It's probably important to use credible sources e.g. BBC, western national newspapers, etc.

We have a right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. This right recognises particularly the freedom to criticise politicians and the government. This is necessary in a democratic society. The British public are not going to like the poodle following the moron into Syria, Iraq, who knows where. The tide is turning. ;-)