LONDON, England -- Hundreds of thousands of people are beginning to take to the streets across the globe this weekend in opposition to military action against Iraq. Marches are being held in more than 300 towns and cities across the world, from the Pacific islands to Europe, New York and San Francisco, where protests are expected to recall demonstrations against the Vietnam war.

The Australian city of Melbourne kicked off the global series of demonstrations which will eventually spread to some 600 towns and cities stretching from Antarctica to Reykjavik. Police estimated 150,000 people protested, The Associated Press reported, while organisers put the crowd at 200,000. AP said it was the biggest peace protest in the country since marches 30 years ago against the Vietnam War in which Australian troops fought alongside U.S. forces. (Full story)

About 6,000 Japanese marched through downtown Tokyo on Friday night, AP said. They waved banners and chanting slogans against the backdrop of the John Lennon song, "Imagine." The biggest protests are planned for Europe with, according to police, 500,000 expected in London and 100,000 across Germany. In Paris the organisers told Reuters they expected a 50,000 turnout and, according to London's Guardian newspaper, Barcelona could match London with a 500,000-strong protest.

------

tomorrow here in madrid, at least 150,000 people are expected for a huge antiwar protest. In the last parliament the GOP was left alone against ALL the opposition in the war debate. Polls say 75% of the population are against a war. sooo... dont sign in spain to the countries that want a war... the only one that wants it is our idiot of a president.

oh, and they have proven jackshit regardind iraqs womds. if thats all the proof the allmighty intel services could muster... lol... yeah, i have a womd hidden in my toilet!!!

Actually, the Iraqis are suppose to prove they don't have them. That has been the "deal" since 1991. They are suppose to prove they don't have the things they were known to have when the weapons inspectors left in '98 and that includes proving they don't have hundreds of tons of nerve agent, and tens of thousands of chemical and biological delivery devices. Furthermore, they need to explain why, in direct violation of the UN, they developed and deployed missles systems with 5 times the launch and lift power allowed. These aren't things the US has tried to prove, these are things the inspectors reported. Too bad no one really cares what the inspectors are saying.

Why not change the protests scheduled for this weekend to pressure the SC and ALL governments to simply remove the inspectors from Iraq altogether and let Saddam do anything he wants? The inspectors obviously aren't being listened to by the SC or those who are protesting, so why bother?

I watched the report given today, so I'm not taking my information on the SC meeting from a baised media recap. I heard what they said this time, and last time, and it adds up to, "the Iraqis are not cooperating, and unless the Iraqis cooperate the job of the inspectors can't be done." Since all the Iraqi government officials say they ARE cooperating fully, what does this tell you about the level of Iraqi cooperation that can be expected in the future?

If the Iraqis aren't going to cooperate completely, as the inspectors say they are failing to do, and if the inspectors say without full cooperation the job can't be done, and if those on the security council aren't willing to enforce their sanctions, isn't this all just a bunch of BS?

If the inspectors found WoMD in your toilet and took pictures, samples, and subjected those WoMD to the "taste test", there are still some members of the security council who would, instead of moving to flush, would want to spend another 12 years calling in more plumbers. ;) :D

[ 02-14-2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Well said Ronn, everyone seems to be turning this thing the other way around these days.

The way I see it, everyone has a right to express their opinion. Right or wrong, for or against. And we all get to live with the consequences of our own opinions or actions.

I respect the war types and the peace types. I agree with some parts of both sides. The ones who feel so strongly that they will not listen to what the opposing view is saying will get no support from me.

This is one world and somehow we all have to live in it together, that's all.

The desires of any given leader should not be the only voices given weight or heeded without question.

Mark

good post dude. The point i was trying to make is that a lot of people see Bush as some kind of boogyman or something. I don't understand why that is. Has the US ever tried to conquer and occupy another country, just because they could ?Do they show desire for territorial expansion ? I don't think so. Now, IF leaders like Saddam, Khadaffi, Kim Il, etc... had the same militairy might as the US, would you still sleep at night ?

The problem with Bush is all in his style, I think. He tries to push things hard at first and comes around later. I think if he toned it down, he would appear more genuine to others. He always wants way more than he expects to get and when others meet him halfway he gets what he really wants. He does that with congress all the time.

Mark

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. Has anyone suggested otherwise in this thread?

A discussion of the various issues is going to obviously involve point-counterpoint. That doesn't mean someone's opinion isn't valid does it? Doesn't that mean we're discussing it? Isn't that what this forum is for?

So Mark, in the quote above, are you saying there's only one leader that thinks Saddam deserves military action? That Bush is the only one who counts on the pro-action side? The British might be offended by that, and the Spanish, and so on and so on. Of course you may have been referring to Tony Blair, or maybe Saddam Hussein, so I won't put any certain leader to your ambiguous statement.

Funny though that you'd suggest one leader is running either side. Doesn't that pre-suppose that no one else has a spine of their own?
;)

[ 02-14-2003, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

I'm going! Just thought I'd interject that into the conversation...

Well, I do live in London after all - it would be kind of silly not to go - wouldn't it! Considering my views on the matter and everything.

No Ronn.

I was not speaking specifically about this forum, but "everyone" in the World in general.

What I am saying is that each leader from Bush to Saddam to Schroeder has opinions that are so strong that they all refuse to see any view in a different direction. It's become so adversarial taht they all have blood in their eyes. Each leader must also listen to others who live in their countries and make balanced decisions based on what is good for all.

I did not even intimate that 1 leader runs each side. Why are over analyzing my post?

Mark

Johnny!

As far as being able to sleep at night over despots with as much firepower as the USA? I doubt it would affect me. As I said elsewhere...I'm not afraid to die! [img]smile.gif[/img]

The ultimate rest!

Mark

Ha ha.
The amusing thing is that so many people seem to have gotten the notion that their governments actually care about what they have to say. Some people don't seem to have cottoned onto the fact that money and weapons are what you need in order to get your opinions taken notice of. '500,000' people (if the figures are even accurate) gathered together for a futile 'can't-we-all-just-get-along' meeting might make a great front-page news photo, but it will change nothing in terms of how valuable a successful invasion of Iraq shall be for all involved.

The war IS going to happen, in fact you might as well consider Iraq invaded already. It's there for the taking, no one with any diplomatic savvy is going to pass up this opportunity. The real issue here is whether the UN is going to survive this ordeal, and what new political world order shall be established among 'the allies' should the UN go the way of the League of Nations.

I don't mean to over analyze, I guess I just didn't understand this reference....

Actually I do understand it, and agree with it in principle, but I'm not sure I understand it in the context of what's being discussed here unless you are intimating that one leader's voice is being given weight and heeded without question.

EDIT - Sorry if I came off too harshly. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-14-2003, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Be safe and let us know about the turn out. [img]smile.gif[/img]

i have just came back and only because i live like 5 blocks away from la puerta del sol (door of the sun). first estimations say around 1.5 million people manifested in madrid, 1.3 in barcelona, 500,000 in valencia and 1 million more in other cities of spain. in rome there were 1.5 million and around the same number or more in london, plus half a million in berlin. in the us massive protests are beginning in new york and other cities. i think numbers speak for themselves...

maybe for the first time in history people will be able to turn the path of their "leaders". blair already spoke about giving more time to weapons inspectors. lets hope everybody does the same and change their warmongering ways.

I wanted to go on the anti war protest in London, but Where I do part time work, Since other people wanted to go The Pharisees needed some people there and they offered to pay me double Time So I stayed and worked.

Will 30 silver pieces be my reward!!??!?!

News of the protests around the World just makes me :D !

Mark

[ 02-15-2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

Actually, that is the case all over Europe... I don't think there's a single country in Europe where a majority of the people actually supports a war. A recent poll in our country actually pointed out that "the" Dutch people think that the US is a bigger danger to world peace than Iraq and North-Korea, in fact. Even though those aren't official statistics from referendi of course (it will also depend on the way the questions in those polls are formulated, I assume), it's safe to say that the US has a bit of a reputation problem over here in Europe at the moment.

[ 02-15-2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

More time will be given, but it isn't being given to the inspectors. Hans Blix has said that with complete Iraqi cooperation the inspector's job didn't have to take as long as it already has taken. With Iraqi cooperation, it could have proceeded at a brisk pace in '91 and been a distant memory by now.

Since it has been made clear the inspectors can never do their job without complete Iraqi cooperation, it's clear the extra time has been given to Saddam Hussein and his government. Hopefully, he will use it to save his people from further hardship by completely complying with the UN.

More time will be given, and if, in the end, a war is averted and the same end result is achieved (the disarming of Iraq), the SC members who stood strong against military action will have much to be proud of, but what will happen when the report on March 15 says the same thing that the report on February 15 said? The February report of course said the same thing the previous report had said, and those report pretty much matched the inspector's reports from the 90's with regard to Iraqi cooperation. This is the same level of cooperation which caused the inspectors to be withdrawn. Maybe this time it won't take 7 years to figure out the inspectors can't work with the Iraqis because the Iraqis won't cooperate completely.

What will people think when the UN is told again that Iraq is not completely cooperating, and the inspectors won't be able to do their job without Iraqi cooperation? They'll be applauded again for avoiding war, won't they? What about when the report comes back in March of 2004?

What happens if the US completely backs down and brings the troops home? Who's going to pressure Saddam to submit? The raving praise offered over the few Iraqi concessions can be directly attributed to the threat of military force, and the overwhelming majority of military force I see threatening Iraq is US. If we pack up and go home, how long will the "carrots" Iraq is offering to the UN last? Maybe once the US troops are gone, the floodgates will open and ALL will be revealed, but I somehow doubt it.

Am I a warmonger? Well, by definition, in this instance yes! I urge war as does my government. I don't crave war. I don't enjoy war. I don't think war is the answer to everything, but I do urge war, so, in this instance, I'm a warmonger.

I hope in two years someone can say, "Ronn remember when you encouraged the wasting of all those innocent lives back in '03? Aren't you glad it didn't happen because it wasn't necessary?" And I hope my answer will be yes. ;)

It still seems weird to me that those who put the highest faith in the inspectors being able to solve this problem think that more time and more inspectors are the answer when the inspectors themselves have said that the only additional ingredient needed for the disarmament of Iraq is the cooperation of Iraq.

All the non-military nations say they want Iraq to comply completely, but the only thing they can offer in the way of making it happen is "continued pressure". Pressure which, for the greatest part, comes from 100k+ US troops. Isn't it great that they can demand peace without having to pay the price for fielding the army? ;)

After the SC meeting on Friday the French Foreign Minister talked to the press. He said the pressure being exerted on Iraq was the reason for its (limited) compliance. When asked if France would be willing to send troops with the US to increase or sustain the pressure (not to act) he said no, the current pressure "was enough". Isn't it great that the US is exerting just enough pressure for peace and those who insist on peace don't have to pay the bill?

Do I belittle the anti-war protesters? NO, I don’t.

I respect their decisions. I just hope they base their decisions on the correct information. If they are for peace no matter what, then more power to them, but for the anti-war protesters who think the answer to this problem is more inspectors and more time for those inspectors, I say, you aren't listening to what the inspectors are saying.

Oppose the war for any reason... except the ones the inspector's reports prove invalid. ;)

It makes Saddam smile, too, but for a completely different reason. ;)

You, and those who protest, oppose military action because you don't want to see innocents die, and because you aren't convinced action is necessary at this time, but Saddam smiles because his plan is working perfectly. If he provides enough carrots to the UN, he will find many governments willing to accept the unacceptable, so in effect, he is "home free" only a few months after thinking it was nearly the endgame for Saddam Hussein. :(

EDIT - Of course, I can't read Saddam's mind, but it's seems that since this approach worked for Iraq during the 90's, there was no reason to believe it couldn't/wouldn't work now despite the Bush-bluster. Especially since the only military attempt at action to enforce the 1991 UN resolutions has been blocked by nations who didn't have a diplomatic solution in mind prior to the past few months. ;)

[ 02-15-2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Sad, but true! :(

I'd say you're ok. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Since you agreed to work, you allowed others to go to the protest in your place, so it didn't reduce those in attendance or hurt the protest in any way. Maybe those you replaced at work actually took others with them, and thereby increased the overall attendance of the event?

Besides, whether you went or not, you believe in the cause and have no problem voicing your opinion, so your attendance (or lack there of) doesn't change the value of that belief. Your sacrifice may actually enhance it. ;)

It doesn't seem like selling out at all. :D

There are reasons other than "innocents will die" Ronn.

If the USA decides to do this alone (or with a few allies) it will set a precedent.

1)Israel would be able declare a similar war on the Palestinians or vice-versa.
The same goes for India and Pakistan, Japan and North Korea, England and Ireland, Russia and Chechnya and any number of other "hotspots"

2)It will cost untold amounts of money to fight this war. It will cost more to clean up and the US government has not said how much it will cost and has not come up with a plan for what happens afterward. The fewer the allies, the more comes out of the taxpayers pockets.

3)We are creating an image that causes many people around the world to hate America. We are angering allies and may stir up the hornets nest of terrorism to new levels. If America doesn't care what they think, then we should close the borders and go into isolation. If we want to be the top dog, we must expect others to try challenge that authority.

I still can't see why we the UN can't just drop 100's of 1,000's of UN troops into Iraq to help the inspectors disarm Iraq and fly U2 planes out to watch for any cheating by the Iraqi Government. Is "blowing stuff up, real good" the only way to fix the problem?

Mark

Well said my friend.

<font color=aqua>UM, Mark dropping hundreds of thousands of UN troops to enforce what the inspectors are doing isn't reasonable based on what most members of the SC are saying. Where are those troops going to come from? Not France, Russia, China, Germany or Belgiam.

Are these troops to go in with the ability to act? I think the new Big 5 will say no, so why would sending in troops in this case matter? To stand around and be laughed at. You want to talk about wasting money, lets send in a 100, 000 UN troops and leave the there for 12 years without any purpose.

The coaltion of the willing did offer the UN troops to enforce the disarmament of Iraq, but the UN is sending more, unneeded, inspectors and giving them more time to evaluate the Iraqis non-compliance. ;) </font>

Money is one of the reasons not to go it alone (or with few allies). We are in the middle of a budget crisis in the USA. The more allies you have the more the costs can be shared.

I have never said we would steal Iraq's oil.

The innefficiency of the UN stems from the inability of members to compromise on the Iraq issue. Both sides are guilty of obsruction and refuse to listen.

Do you not think the anger against America has no connection to the attitudes of the current US government? Does it mean that since we are already hated, we might as well play the part and push them more?

The troops that enter Iraq have to be from all (or most of) the nations of the UN. If not Iraq will merely be thought of by many as a stepping stone on the way to Global Domination by the USA (not my opinion).

I ask again, what good is a War if can not find the weapons that are at issue here? This is a quagmire that we will be unable to extricate ourselves from.

The best thing for the USA is to do what Bush had said he wanted to do for America during the Presidential Debates. He wanted to bring the Reps and the Dems together in a bi-partisan partnership. He said he would bring the 2 sides together for the good of America. USA needs to bring the nations together, not break them apart. The whole UN issue is a failure in Bush's foreign policy.

Mark

Yesterday over a million people turned up to Hyde Park to hear actors, artists, and politicians (including the Lib. Dem leader) speak out against the war. In Glasglow the Prime Minister was ushered away quickly before tens of thousands (number unconfirmed at the time) peace protesters descended on the conference hall.

[ 02-16-2003, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Kaltia ]

Mark, money is not a reason to do it or not to do it in my opinion. It either needs to be done or it doesn't. The UN either makes resolutions it intends to enforce, or it hands out pieces of paper that are a waste of time.

The inefficiency of the UN comes from the fact that the UN is inefficient. It makes rules it doesn't intend to enforce and then all the members bog down into "we want to do it this way." The whole UN issue is a failure of all the nations involved, not just Bush's foreign policy as you stated. Bush is suppose to be able to cure the world's ills?

Certainly it does, just as I mentioned a current anger against France in the US is based on the attitudes of that current government. It's ok to disagree.

Alot of resentment towards the US comes from the fact that "if push comes to shove" we can do what we choose, while many others cannot. Of course, we shouldn't go around doing whatever we please, but does the US have to appease everyone?

Too bad the UN isn't going to send anyone. :(

You keep asking this question despite the fact that Hans Blix has answered it on three different occasions. The inspectors can never search out and find WoMD because it's not a job the inspectors are capable of doing. The job of the inspectors is to oversee the disarmament process, not to disarm Iraq. Iraq is suppose to disarm itself under the inspectors oversight. The Iraqis have to surrender such weapons or submit proof of their destruction. The Iraqis have done neither.

Don't kid yourself Mark, if Iraq completely submits to disarmament or is conquered their capability to create WoMD will be destroyed, and the stockpiled weapons will be found.

[ 02-16-2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

I missed responding to your question before you edited it Kaltia, and it was a good questions, so I'll respond anyway to clarify my position. [img]smile.gif[/img]

No one is saying those who believe that there should be no war shouldn't protest. I think people should stand up for what they believe whether I believe in their cause or not.

I just hope those who protest aren't opposed to the war because they think there is a need for more inspectors and more time for inspectors in Iraq, and that the US is trying to move too quickly. The Inspector General has told the UN SC on several different occasions that the only thing needed for the inspections to proceed quickly and efficiently is for the Iraqi's to cooperate completely. He reluctantly admits that isn't happening. He admits it every time he makes a report to them.

[ 02-16-2003, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

This debate keeps going in circles, so maybe I'll just let it go for now. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mark...offers Ronn a handshake in friendship.

[ 02-16-2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

Handshake Accepted! [img]smile.gif[/img]

We can always agree to disagree. :D