War Protests

There was one in Downtown Chicago, estimated crowd of 2000-3000 people. The news showed a few arrests it looked relatively peaceful.

I heard of another in NYC and in Seoul, South Korea.

at least it's peaceful... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

They have protest gatherings in Seattle too, figure at least a few thousand crammed into Westlake Mall's outdoor area, and a few hundred of those ending up at the Federal Building farther downtown a bit later on.

The cops seem to only be making arrests when the crowd blocks off streets to vehicular traffic, and no pepper spray seems to be flying unlike during the WTO protests of late November 1999, 2000, and 2001.

You might get a laugh out of this video. Shows how emotional and uninformed some of these people are!

http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest2.html

I just finished a phone call to my Father. He said he took the afternoon off of work due to the protests in downtown Pittsburgh. He said they were starting to block traffic and cause some problems so he just took off early.

Anybody stick around to see or watch the news in the SW PA area?

I'm all in favor of protesting and freedom of speech, but your freedom ends when it interfers with my freedom to do what I want, lest you get pushed out of the way by my 2,800 lb. unleded powered people mover. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twak.gif


-Jason

Updated report a 10,000 person crowd (estimated) has amassed in a plaza in downtown Chicago, next to The Federal Building. Arrests are in the 300 + range.

[ QUOTE ]
flownosaj said:
I just finished a phone call to my Father. He said he took the afternoon off of work due to the protests in downtown Pittsburgh. He said they were starting to block traffic and cause some problems so he just took off early.

Anybody stick around to see or watch the news in the SW PA area?

I'm all in favor of protesting and freedom of speech, but your freedom ends when it interfers with my freedom to do what I want, lest you get pushed out of the way by my 2,800 lb. unleded powered people mover. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twak.gif


-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

We had a crowd down in Albany lie in the middle of a highway (I787) stopping traffic for a half hour. They got their asses hauled off to jail. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

San Francisco radio reported a large group called Puke For Peace were tossing their cookies in the streets of that city.

They obviously live too close to Berkeley.

Marty

Marty, your post reminds me of the old Sat. Night Live skit where they were doing a telethon. I think it was Bill Murray that said, "I am going to chug this glass of Orange Juice for Great Britain". He takes a sip and says, "Nope, can't do it"

I just discovered the line is not funny in print but I wrote it so I will leave it. It's another example of doing something stupid for a cause. Never mind, going to bed.

DD

LOL

Marty

So, Englica is now at war with Iraq! Where next?
Whilst I was away in Sweden, a country very skeptical about the war, I heard that there are still thousands of Serbian refugees in Sweden, displaced from thier country by the 99 Kosovo war. They cannot go home (They have no homes to go to).
Everywhere where the NATO forces have gone has been left devastated with very little aid following war. Yugoslavia and Afghanistan have been bombed into the stone age. Even 11 years after the Bosnian war, bridges and industry have not been replaced.
I am essentially against this war, as it could cause great instability. We live in a county with a very large Muslim population who are very angry. The biggest threat to peace is an uprising in Europe.
There are numerous protest movements here in England. http://www.stopthewar.org
I have no animosity to tha American people, as I have 100's of friends there, but I am very shocked that the American media refuses to report the facts of war! There are too many commercial interests there!

welcome back EMPOWERTORCH!
a little piece of advice: be careful with your anti-war comments or criticism of the US press (even if true), could start an avalanche ... look at some other threads first.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
bernhard

The biggest fear I have at the moment is that "we" are willing to violate UN laws that we so vehemently say that we're trying to uphold. In the UN we've already lost the moral arguement. Whats to stop another nation uprising without the consent of the UN?We also have some very unsavoury "bedfellows" in the coalition. Turkey, for example has been in breach of a UN resolution since 1974 occupying a soverign state (Cyprus). If we make rules, we MUST be prepared to abide by them. Today's action will be seen by every nation seeking conquest to take up arms ...Might does not necessarily mean right...

firstly, protesters remind me of my 1 year old niece: they whine but dont know what is going on. waaah! waaah! waah!

they have a right to protest...but it really surprised me that they had the nerve to be angry when they were arrested (in Detroit) for blocking access to some buildings. they deserved to be arrested.

also, it seems that there is plenty of media coverage of protests, and the truth is that there just arent that many people protesting. sorry folks, but it is true. the numbers are remarkably small. the protests appear impressive because it is not often you see so many people in one place rallying--and they tend to cause disruption, which also seems impressive.

secondly: the US isnt going against any UN laws, we are upholding it! the UN might have even upheld the multitude of resolutions if France and others had not gone back on their word.
resolution 1441 was UNANIMOUSLY voted in, and when time to enforce it, several countries backed out. the US is not going to wait around for these chicken-sh!t backstabbing countries to agree.

We feel threatened, so we are going to act. "But Iraq was contained". if Iraq were so contained, then how are they able to lob ILLEGAL missiles into Kuwait? the Kuwait people sure look reassured by the "containment" with their bomb shelters and gas masks.


let us not forget that at last count, 35+ countries are supporting this war. the count before that was 26-6-6 (26 supported the war, 6 agreed with another resolution, 6 were opposed). that is pretty good support, dont you think? so, who has lost the moral arguement?

Turkey? who the heck is Turkey? they arent a threat to the US or England, are they? you are comparing apples to oranges, my friend.

have a nice and light filled day!

Bob

Well...Protestors...Fun Facts:

--A majority of protestors are paid by various organizations to cause trouble and protest whatever the group tells them to do.

--ANSWER, the group largely responsible for the protests is run by a Lawyer, who also represents Hussein on various legal issues. ANSWER is also rooted in the old AMerican Communist Party.

--Another group, known as Black Bloc is a roaming anarchy group that believes the only way to overthrow the U.S. Gov't is to burn down its cities. They were the ones in Seattle that caused a lot of problems. There are alot in S.F., but not as many as were at the February protests.

----dan

[ QUOTE ]
...it seems that there is plenty of media coverage of protests,...

[/ QUOTE ]

My local news last night actually showed people rallying in support!! Go figure! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif


[ QUOTE ]
let us not forget that at last count, 35+ countries are supporting this war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard that there were 40 countries who were a part of the Coalition of the Willing. I like that term... Coalition of the Willing. VERY cool!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

These protestors disgust me. I see these KIDS and I swear that if it were my kid, I'd slap her upside the head and teach her exactly what opression is all about. Then maybe she'd get a clue. But I don't have to worry about that... I have an intelligent kid... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

>>violate UN laws

Ah, Empower, every scud missile Iraq is firing (granted not many), violates the 11 year old UN agreement and the recent UN inspection teams report that "Iraq" has no missiles.

>>protestors

It said on the news, that all these protests are being orchestrated on the web ... by forces intent on disrupting the financial stability of both the US and England.

In other words, the peace-niks are being played for puppets which is why yesterday, across the nation, they tried to disrupt traffic ... and today, they are marching on financial and government buildings.

Just another form of terrorism.

You are either "for" freedom ... or you are "against" it. There is no middle ground.

>>rebuilding

Ah, Empower ... come on. We helped Europe rebuild .. and we're helping other countries rebuild. Get a grip on reality here, ok? You can't rebuild an oppressed countries economy overnight. Do you know how much food and medicine the Iraq people could purchase with it's oil money being directed to the welfare and health of its people instead of the palaces of a ruthless murderer?

War is a terrible business ... but when most of Europe was threatened by a ruthless dictator in the past (least we forget!) or world peace is threatened by a current ruthless dictator ... there is no other choice.

You are kidding yourself to think otherwise!

I'm curious about the charge of violating UN law. Some of the security council resolutions are on the internet and you can read them. Mostly they are pretty dry, and on all the more recent ones they have been very careful not to spell out exactly what the consequences of not following them will be. Mostly it sounds like kids on the school yard yelling "Or ELSE!" at each other.

This is clearly the Or Else isn't it? What did they mean if not this?

I'm very specifically not bringing the big picture into play. I'm not addressing accusations of collusion between Jack Chirac and Saddam, I'm not addressing conspiracy theory or the fear that we wont help them rebuild. I'm specifically asking about the context you have to read the resolutions in where it doesn't say if you don't disarm we will provide military action to disarm you.

I have lots of questions about other decisions that president Bush has made about things closer to home, but I just can't find the words that would make this particular one a violation of international law. Find me the words that say "Up to but not including military action" or something like that.

empowertorch said:
"There are too many commercial interests there!"

i would just like to say that there are far more commercial interests in russia and france and saudi arabia to oppose the war than here. when we get rid of saddamn, and set evertying straight, they will be the ones in trouble because of oil and weapon contracts, and the saudis will have competetion, resulting in lower oil profits for them.

i believe war should be the last resort as much as anyone, but i think we have waited to long as it is. saddam is a threat, to his own people and everyone else's and we have gone long past that "last resort". he has had far to long without opposition to do whatever he wants, and it is long everdue that he should be eradicated.

[ QUOTE ]
I_rv_too said:
War is a terrible business ... but when most of Europe was threatened by a ruthless dictator in the past...

[/ QUOTE ]

...The President of the United States tried unsuccessfully for years to get support from congress and the American people to do something about it. What little help FDR managed to get for England was through subterfuge. Only when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor did America begrudgingly enter WWII.

Truth be told, before Pearl Harbor, America valiantly decided that it was Europe's problem. "lest we forget" indeed.