Reply
Sun 16 Feb, 2003 03:10 pm
Protesters rally against Iraq war
Posted: Sunday, February 16, 9:18am EST
Thousands of antiwar demonstrators packed more than 20 blocks near the United Nations headquarters Saturday, the largest of an estimated 150 peace rallies across the nation that filled city streets with banners, chanting and people from all walks of life.
Protests were held across the nation, from Maine to Hawaii, and from Texas to Minnesota.
Organizers of the New York rally, who had hoped for 100,000 people, estimated the crowd at anywhere from 375,000 to 500,000. NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly said about 100,000 people were in the crowd, which stretched 20 blocks deep and spanned three avenues.
Protests that started Friday in Australia continued through the weekend with a massive Sunday demonstration of more than 100,000 people in Sydney. The protests were the biggest in Australia since the Vietnam War three decades ago.
In a global outpouring of anti-war sentiment, Rome claimed the biggest turnout - 1 million according to police, while organizers claimed three times that figure.
In London, at least 750,000 people demonstrated in what police called the city's largest demonstration ever. In Spain, several million people turned out at antiwar rallies in about 55 cities and towns across the country, with more than 500,000 each attending rallies in Madrid and Barcelona.
Do you think the worldwide protests against the policies of the US government and more specifically Bush and company will have an impact upon our anticipated action in Iraq. Or will Bush continue to see evil, hear evil and do evil.
No, i'm afraid!
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told both "Fox News Sunday" and NBC's "Meet the Press" that President Bush would not back down, despite pleas last week from most members of the U.N. Security Council that he give weapons inspectors more time.
"The coalition of the willing is preparing," she told Fox. "We are in a period now, a diplomatic window, in which we should be discussing how the Security Council can best carry out its obligations. She said Washington will not accept "delaying tactics" at the United Nations Security Council.
from what i have read it seems most likely that if anyone is detered it might be Blair.
Good question - if only you had left off the editorial commentary at the end.
They sent Condi Rice out on Sunday, and by what she said and how she said it, they'yre taking note, all right. One of the biggest problems is that the Bush league is left with nowhere to go. If they go in, the can flatten Iraq, but that would not be a victory. If they go in, they are hoping they will be seen in a different light - but increaasingly there is a public view of a bully, of the same attitude that characterized Bush two years ago. If they back off, they lose tremendous face. Not a sign of a great power that doesn't allow itself to move its position. Thie time there were peace marches all over the world, numbering in the millions, with full newspaper coverage. pretty hard to ignore.
Hmmm - 'tia an interesting question. Generally I think no. However, when they become as big as the ones over the last couple of days, or when they go on and on (like the mothers in Argentina) I think they do have an effect on governments. Tony Blair DID look very weighed down by the hugeness - especially given they know what a huge number of people who feel the same stay home.
My Prime Minister, while insisting that Oz commitment stays the same - (though he continues to fudge on whether troops will be committed sans UN sanction) certainly looked very troubled - I suspect he is genuinely horrified at the thought of war, and is being hammered by opinion polls, the Opposition and his own party, many of whom have expressed opposition.
This one is very different from our sending troops to East Timor - where the people were insisting it happen way ahead of government resolve, or the commitment to Afghanistan, which had strong popular support.
Also, the rallies in Oz brought out people who would never normally protest - this could mean votes at the next election...
But - who knows.
Why were people banned from assembling in NYC?
dlowan
Quote:Why were people banned from assembling in NYC?
They were not banned from assembling only marching because of the disruption and fear of terrorist action.
They weren't banne from assembling, but from marching. Among reasons - necessity for more police, fire engines, EMS trucks (all required to be there - and there are severe money problems right now, and this would be oveertime); a desire to keep problem spots away from the U.N. (nobody ever knows what will happen with a crowd); traffic. Marches block off streets and can create severe blockage problems. Probably, also, because there was a march last month. Also, the crime rate is rising, and a march takes police away and gives more opportunities.
I don't know any of this, I'm guessing, but I really don't think NYC is all to blame. And they did give a terrific assembly spot.
au1929 wrote:dlowan
Quote:Why were people banned from assembling in NYC?
They were not banned from assembling only marching because of the disruption and fear of terrorist action.
Seems to me - regarding the reports from all the other countries - to have been the only place with such restrictions.
Walter Let me remind you that NYCity is a prime target for terrorism and by the way used to be where the World Trade Center stood. That might have had something to do with. Do you suppose?
Of course the protests are heard, and applauded in Baghdad, Pyong-Yang, and a dozen other capitols where America is hated.
Asherman
Normally, you are very well informed.
There are at this moment quite a few Monday papers online, but a look at the Sunday issues will give you another information as well.
The Bush administration filed a brief in support of a city government's attempts to suppress a march which was protesting their policies.
Let's all understand something, citizens.
We are under threat from terrorists.
The government hasn't got enough money to defend our cities because it needs to cut taxes for the rich people, who are the most productive members of our society. Therefore, it is not in the national interest to allow people to gather in these threatened cities and drain the few precious resources we have left.
If you can't shut your mouths, the government will have no choice but to take some duct tape and wrap it around your heads. We're at Code Orange, for God's sake. It's for your own good.
Asherman - would there EVER be a war America wished to wage that you would not support?
This is a serious question.
I find your stance on Vietnam, for instance, highly interesting - my understanding was that even the American administrations at the time of the war now thought it wa swrong - even McNamara, yet you support it.
What is all the fuss about being able to march? The demonstration had the same effect march or no march and without the usual disruption caused by marches. As a native New Yorker I would prefer that marches and demonstrations be held in someone else's city. Where they can bear the brunt of the disruption and the related costs.
Walter,
I'm not sure what you are alluding to.
Large, even massive demonstrations have occurred and been widely reported. One can hardly avoid the exhaltation felt by many who earnestly believe that their public opposition to military action taken against Iraq will save the world.
The spread of civil rights throughout the world is largely due to the existence and power of the United States. It is good to see that success demonstrated in the streets, even when those demonstrations are directed against our efforts to provide a stable, secure and peaceful world. Such anti-government demonstrations would not be permitted in Iraq, North Korea, China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and on and on and on. It is distressing that those now free are so willing to leave others in chains, and are unwilling to support those governments most responsible for their own freedom. It is gratifying that the newly freed nations of Eastern Europe recognize the dangers posed by Iraq more clearly than France. West Germany became strong behind the American shield, and now seems willing to trade it's strength for the Socialist promise that made East Germany a wasteland. Of course, I recognize that's an over simplification, but less far fetched than many of the accusations hurtled against the elected leaders of American, Britain and Australia.
Asherman
I'm sure, you wont tell me that demonstrations were invented by the USA.
I just wanted to say that these demonstrations weren't only applauded in the mentioned places but especially by more than 7 millions demonstrators and some more sympathisants all over in the world.
Asherman wrote:Of course the protests are heard, and applauded in Baghdad, Pyong-Yang, and a dozen other capitols where America is hated.
This isn't "With us or against us". People marching against a war in Iraq are no fans of the Saddam or Kim regime.
I know Bush likes to say "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" Like there is no alternative. We all know Bush likes to keep things simple but you cant understand this complex world in such a simple black-white dichotomy.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace