SHARE YOUR CITY'S PEACE RALLY HERE.

MD, I never meant to imply any such suggestion that all pro-war supporters are some bloodthirsty lunatics, sorry if I made such impression on you. Such supporters are also among the people I love and respect. And I respect opinions of you and like-minded people on this web. It is a very tough and complicated moral choice, we all, on both sides, need to recognize that. And neither side, as it in the real world often if not always is, has any monopoly on justice or truth. When it comes to war, we have to base decisions on conscience and our own morals, both being very subjective and backed by a multitude of personal, cultural and social issues. So, I hear you, I hear others that think similarly, I respect your views, but I still disagree for all the reasons I have posted above and elsewhere - no need to bore those who keep reading these threads by tiring repetition.

At very short notice more than 20 thousand people protested at the start of the bombing at a rally in Melbourne, Oz yesterday afternoon.
Rallies were held all over Australia at the same time, with many planned for today (Friday).
A very sombre mood in Melbourne yesterday, but it's obvious the protests will continue.
Here's a cartoon comment that nicely sums up the feeling of the protesters at our prime minister's speech "explaining" why Australia is involved in Iraq :

http://www.theage.com.au/ftimages/2003/03/17/1047749693589.html

``

sorry, slightly off topic, but, umm, but did you all notice the first remark in bush's speech to iraqi nation: "do not set the oil fields on fire!" ;-) . right, right, i listened, he added quickly that they belong to iraqi people and so on and so forth, but look at kuwait. most of their oil wells after the war are owned by big fat MNCs, with US headquarters. do you think it will be otherwise in iraqi case? i am not implying this is the sole reason for invasion, not at all. but it does make you think about how the world is progressing. for it is a general wide-spread trend. but, that's a task for a different thread altogether. globalization and its discontents, or whatnot.

Today, in San Francisco:



and in Austin, TX:



and in Boston:

Dag and I stopped to watch a march down Mass Ave in Harvard Square today. We were with my 3.5 year old neice who was over-due for a nap and a little upset by all the hoopla. Poor little tot. For some reason watching that protest, I felt like crying. I'm still not sure why - all of IT I guess

Here's Cambridge, k:

Thanks for the posts, PDiddie.
Very heartening.

The Guardian UK:

THOUSANDS PROTEST AS THE WAR BEGINS

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,918039,00.html

~

WORLD-WIDE PROTESTS AS WAR BEGINS:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,917552,00.html

~~

I just left the office to grab a bite and come back. Downtown San Diego is having a large protest right now.

Over the last few days there have been protests and the numbers are increasing (but not to the point that their detractors would consider significant).

You realize of course, that if all of these people would have voted, Gore would have REALLY, ACTUALLY won.

Of course, that would be considered constructive and conforming, wouldn't it?

There is beginning to be such an interesting (as in "may you live in interesting times") divide between government and people. I happened to be listening to an account of the (apparent) unity within Congress (they all slapped each other on the back and maintained loudly that they supported America in a war, etc. etc.) when I clicked into this thread and saw the account of the protests. Congress suddenly seemed to be like a large group of perfectly decent people who are, nonetheless, trapped in a locked movie theatre watching a film over and over again, while outside life goes on, people breathe the air, turn their faces to the sun, take on new challenges, ratiocinate...

Could someone list the activities expected of one if one "supports our troops"? What does this entail, exactly and graphically? I'm not kidding -- I'd really like to know.

By the way, it was nice to take a little time off today from the zizz and buzz of organized murder and watch the organized defending and sustaining of life in the film, "Fast Runner." Highly recommended as an antidote.

We have an ongoing vigil at Parliament House (organized by a friend of mine, I discovered, when listening to the radio on the way home last night) and a march on Sunday afternoon.

I was listening to the radio again on the way home from a funeral today, and discovered that this is "Harmony Day" in Oz - meant to encourage harmony between different groups and also countries, I guess. A number of Moslem women were speaking of being harassed in the streets when they wear the veil - sigh.

Guardian's GUIDE TO ANTI-WAR WEB SITES:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/subsection/0,12809,884056,00.html

~~

A few suggestions for signs for those of us who will be marching this weekend:

'They hate us for our freedom to kill them'
'Abortion laws create cannon fodder'
'Walk for peace now or run for your life later'
'There is enough religion in the world for men to hate each other, but not enough to love'
'Read my apocalypse, armageddon angry'

(these may be subconsciously plagiarized...)

PDiddie:

I'm thinking of doing a double sided sign:

On one side will be a quote from Goering or Gobbles and the other

"This War Is Madness"

GO BLUE DEVILS!

About the "men and women dying in battles" thing, I want to add something.

In Afghanistan, the number of US military casualties was: 20. The number of Afghan civilian casualties was several thousand, thus far. In Yugoslavia, the number of US military casualties was less than 100; the number of casualties on the other side and among the civilians was some 800. In the Gulf war, the number of Allied casualties was: 150. The number of Iraqi casualties was anywhere between 10,000 and 100,000 - among whom, allegedly, some 6,000 were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front.

I am not saying that these balances in numbers themselves make those wars wrong. A war is either justified or not, and you dont have to have thousands of your own men dying to 'prove' that it is.

But it does give a hollow sound to the rhetorics of the "you protest all you want, but remember that you're doing it while valiant men and women are giving their lives for your freedom" kind.

Whether just or unjust, the overwhelming number of men and women dying in battles like the ones going on now will be either soldiers or civilians of the country "we" are attacking. Unless Saddam turns out to indeed have hidden stashes of chemical weapons and he decides (God forbid) to use them - which for now is merely speculation - this war will involve a minimal number of "our soldiers" dying - minimal in historical perspective - and a great number of people dying by their weapons.

Whether you consider the goal these weapons are meant to achieve to justify the lives they take or not, it would be appropriate to at least stand still at the massive loss of lives our relatively invulnerable troops are effectuating before reproaching the demonstrators who feel there could have been another way to solve the problem about "the men and women who died in battles".

Off-topic, but you are right there, actually, maxsdadeo.

That is to say, I'm sure almost all politically involved enough to attend demonstrations will have voted, but I do think the many among them who voted Nader should now take a second to realise that if they hadn't, we would most probably not be looking at this war right now, and the UN wouldnt have been torn apart.

Not that it's primarily their fault that Gore didnt win - he should just have fought a better campaign - but if they had voted differently, he would've gotten in, and we wouldn't be looking at burning oil fields now. And they said that "Gush or Bore", it was all the same anyway ... <sad sigh>

Ironically enough, I would like to defend (some of) those who voted for Bush. Ok, I don't really see why they did, but I would imagine that quite a few of them may be out there in the rallies and protests. I did not expect that much grandness after he took power, but I also did not expect that the world will plummett into a disarray during his reign. So some mild conservativists who went for him out of habit, or those who just saw him as the least evil compared to alternatives for whatever reasons of their own, may feel really bummed out right now.