SHARE YOUR CITY'S PEACE RALLY HERE.

And who is to decide on the proof he comes with, and on whether it is enough? If it is breaking the UN resolution you are accusing him off, isn't it up to the UN to judge on to what extent he did so, and what the appropriate reaction is? Rather than on one of its members - one that has quite a few very particular stakes of its own in the game - making the decision for it?

Sydney, Australia:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/16/1045330468385.html

~

nimh - Take a look at how South Africa worked pro-actively to show the world it was dismantling its weapons programs for a cue what Saddam promised to do, should be doing, is required to do to remain in power and alive, and will never ever do.

tres; and now south africa is sending its expertise to advise Iraq.

here's how we do it in my home town...

The Sunday Mail (Brisbane, Australia)
750 Women Go Nude in Protest

ondreams.org/headlines03/0208-06.htm

You're ignoring the question. If it is breaking "the world's rules" (i.e., the UN Resolution) one chooses to define as casus belli, who is to decide on that but "the world"/the UN?

It is not up to you to decide what Iraq "should be doing" or "is required to do" - and it is not up to Mr. Rumsfeld either; if it is "not playing by the world's rules" one accuses Hussein of, as Maxsdadeo does, then what we should be doing is uphold the world's rules, and not go out vigilanting ourselves, too.

Below today's Volkskrant report on Saturday's rally in Amsterdam (modest in comparison to that in other cities but bigger than expected).

In other, 'small', news there were items of how SMS messages to the Music Factory TV station, normally along the lines of 'any beautiful babes free tonight', have turned political with messages against war and questions who's going to demonstrate; and of how anti-war messages even return in the virtual world of gamer communities (saw an article along the same lines as the one Jespah noted on this forum).

Against Bush, Blair, Balkenende and ... Bos

'Balkenende [Dutch PM] molenaar [miller]!' The banner proves that there are some old hands on the Dam too. During the Vietnam protests, an eternity ago, it was forbidden to call then-US president Johnson moordenaar [murderer] on the street. The lowlands-version Johnson molenaar' was born.

Socialist Party (SP) leader Jan Marijnissen must have thought of those times when he calls out: "Give peace a chance!". Yeah, man.

OK, turnout is in no proportion to the happenings in last century's seventies, let alone to those in 1981, when 400,000 people demoonstrated in the capital against the nuclear missiles.

But seventy, perhaps eighty thousand demonstrators against the looming war in Iraq, when at most half of that was expected, that is very special. Young and old and of all denominations, they turn out to be mobilisable after all. One doesn't need IKV [Christian org] or FNV [trade union] for that.

At the front of the march hundreds of Americans and Iraqis, who have found each other as fellow new Dutchmen in this protest. [..] Further in the back two ladies of advanced age of The Hague chic, who indicate with modest signs that they're against, too. Against Bush, Blair, Balkenende and ... Bos [Labour Party leader], who has suddenly been relegated to this list of dubious B-class political leaders too.

Former minister Jan Pronk has seen the photos too, with the face of his party's leader and the text "Who has seen this man?". [..] Another woman carries a sandwichboard with oneliners. They turn out to mostly focus on intrusive TV-preachers. [..] The woman, who came to the capitol by herself: "Its just time for all that crap about Muslims to be finished. I just had to come out and say that finally."

On the Dam a man in blue SP-jacket rushes to help a girl set fire to an American flag. They don't succeed, not even when a few Americans light their Zippos under it. It's almost as if it has to stay peaceful, today.

The LPF [List Pim Fortuyn] is there, too: "Pim wouldn't have wanted this", is the message.

Wholly new, to Dutch standards, is the giant banner at the entry of the Vondelpark: 'Schroeder for President'. Der Gerd, the contrary German Chancellor who resists military intervention so firmly, is a hero here. 'Never thought I'd ever be pro-German', says a young student from Leiden.

There's some rowdy youth, too: Moroccon teenagers, who would love to go visit the American consulate. They talk big to the anti-riot squad, but are easily swayed by veteran activist and organiser Saskia Kouwenberg. Any of them who keeps on being a pest is quickly and visibly plucked from the street by father or uncle.

The demonstration ends at the Leidseplein. 'Is it already finished?', a few children ask their parents. Luckily McDonalds is around the corner. Protest placards are set against the window and inside the family goes for an American hamburger and Coke.

The hard core groups together in Paradiso, where they party till late in the night. Against war and for peace.

Thank you for your answer, Asherman.

Have really appreciated the wonderful descriptions of protests -- and the images!

I'm reading Jonathan Schell's piece on the buildup to war in the latest Harper's and am reminded (once an hour we should all be reminded, Lest We Forget) that peace always trumps war. No exceptions. Those who march for peace and those who post for peace are simply in the right -- those who move armies around on maps, dream of missiles, and justify pre-emptive strikes are simply wrong -- and dangerous. There isn't a single war which hasn't created more problems than it has solved. Even that prettified uprising, our own revolution, had consequences. Further, NIMH is right -- the US has no right to decide who is breaking the world's rules. If the US breaks international rules, sets up its own rules and acts on them, it will deserve the consequences as well as the burden of harm our acts cause outside of our little piece of real estate.

NIMH, I have a video which I watch often -- The Assault (Oerlag). Your description of the demonstrations reminded me.. The outflow from war never ends.

while i would admit there are quite a large number of less than articulate members of the anti-war protesters. At a pro-Bush, pro-War demonstration yesterday in Denver Colorado numbering about 700 persons the featured speaker said (para-phrased) "to all you anti-war demonstrators, if you don't support Bush you can just leave the country and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out". Now, we have on this forum many well reasoned persons with sound arguments in support of the Iraq invasion but if this speaker in Denver represents our opposition i fear for the credibilty of the pro-war faction.

Texans Turn Out Against War
by Jackson Thoreau

You could say I'm a veteran of peace demonstrations. Since the early 1980s, I estimate that I have participated in more than 200 such rallies and marches around the world, from Dallas to Washington, D.C., to New York City to London to Paris to Berlin to Moscow to New Dehli. Some, like many in my resident city of Dallas, Texas, have been relatively small, but important nonetheless. Others, like in D.C. and European cities, have been massive. In some, we didn't march. In others, we marched for miles.

But on Saturday, Feb. 15, I emerged from the largest demonstration I've ever attended in Dallas with more hope than ever before that our situation will improve. It wasn't just that 5,000 or so people from one of the most right-wing regions of the world, the former home of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the fictional J.R. Ewing and many others who represent cold-hearted, selfish economic and political policies, had braved the wind and cold and threats and everything else to make a statement to Bush Inc. that a blood-for-oil-personal-revenge-world-domination-military-boost war against economic-sanctions-wracked Iraq was unacceptable.

It was the wide array of people from all walks of life: high school students showing they cared about more than their own problems, soccer moms protesting for the first time, retired school teachers, professionals in suits, war veterans, parents who also brought their young children -- that gave me the most hope.

Bush can continue to ignore veteran activists and liberals like me. But he can't ignore the independent suburban voters, the kind who don't vote straight-ticket Republican or any other political party.

Bush can't ignore people like Virginia Abdo, a 68-year-old retired teacher from University Park, a wealthy suburb right next to the burb where Cheney lived until he helped steal the White House. When people like Abdo carry signs like, "Old Euro-Americans Want Peace Too," Bush better take notice.

Bush can't ignore people like Virginia Barnett, a 49-year-old graphics technician from Dallas who attended a peace rally at the memorial for assassinated former President John F. Kennedy for the first time in her life on Saturday. He can't ignore Harold Jones, an 81-year-old World War II veteran who carried a sign that read "Brains Not Bombs." He can't ignore Jason Lantz, a computer systems administrator running for City Council in Plano, a city north of Dallas even more conservative than the latter.

Alternet

Interesting:

http://www.moveon.org/winwithoutwar/

Have to get to Byron.

Excellent article! Thank you very much. Where did it appear?

nimh:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/opinion/18KRUG.html

ul

Thanks

Paul Krugman (and Frank Rich, now gone from the NYT op-ed pages) are two of the very best, most incisive, independent and intelligent commentators.

As for Krugman's question about who d'ya believe, a warning: Michael Powell's FCC is planning some big changes this spring, changes which will make the media even less responsive and even more conglomerated than they are now -- by a long shot. A reporter on NPR this morning indicated the US is about to experience not only a decrease of real news and information but tremendous and serious cultural changes as result of a dramatic policy shift proposed by the FCC to take effect this spring. The policy shift (weakly protested by Sen. McCain and apparently not very interesting to other members of our checks and balances brigade) will lead to ever greater control of the media by ever fewer megacorporations with agendas showing no respect for freedom of information.

In my view those cultural shifts have already started... in spades. Judging from much of what I read herein, our schools have long since caved in to pressure and are teaching history and civics pablum. Orwell's name pops up a lot these days. I like the guy, but I don't want his fictions to become our permanent realities. Should we not perhaps get as lively and insistent about protesting these rule changes at the FCC as we are about the war the media are current promoting? Or are we snoozing through this one, folks?

Sorry to hear about your divorce with reality, Tartarin.

Tartarin

The situation here in Canada is similar. Some 70% of Canada's dailies are owned by the Asper family (that both Vancouver dailies and one of the two national papers that flood in each morning).

The family is not terribly fond of Palestinians or Arabs generally, and likes to term criticism of US or Likud policies as 'anti-Americanism' and 'anti-Semitism'. A recent week of coverage on global warming gave multiple pages to an interview with Bjorn Lomborg, and perhaps one tenth the column inches to the scientific communities response to his book.

If you bump into a good piece on the FCC's plans, please link it for us.

Max...your posts stand out for their thorough and thoughtful address to issues. Subtlety and nuance are simply no match for your incisive grasp of the big picture. And that's not even to mention the unusual quality of your wit.