[Troll]

That's the official police version of the number of protesters in London! On a WEEKDAY!!!

I would have liked to have participated, but was stuck in meetings all day. Did go down to Buckingham Palace last night though (I was working in London yesterday) and gave the thumbs up to some of the die-hards standing in the rain trying to deny Bush his beauty sleep!

Hats off to everyone who took time out of their workday to vote with their feet. If we'd been able to escape our duties, I can assure you there would have been many more out there today. I hope those two war criminals got the message!

[BoomStick]

Yeah thay got the message.

The proterroristors are too stupid to come in out of the rain.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
Yeah thay got the message.

The proterroristors are too stupid to come in out of the rain.

Inflammatory, knee-jerk reaction. Congrats, you must be proud.

[finboy]

I wonder how many of those protesters are just jobless losers?

That's my contribution to the knee-jerk response.

[BoomStick]

"professional protestors".
heh.

[Troll]

Originally posted by finboy:
I wonder how many of those protesters are just jobless losers?

That's my contribution to the knee-jerk response.

I wondered that too, but I spoke to some last night and I saw the BBC piece tonight where they got iPod-like testimonials from protesters (my name is x and I'm here because ...) and none of them were jobless. What was interesting both with the people I met and with the ones interviewed was a) their age (older than I expected) and b) that they had travelled in from outside London. Seems Londoners only joined after work this evening - obviously take work more seriously.

[BRussell]

The ever-spinnning Wall Street Journal today equated the protesters in London to car bomber terrorists in Istanbul.


London protesters and Istanbul bombers try to send a message--the same message.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The ever-spinnning Wall Street Journal today equated the protesters in London to car bomber terrorists in Istanbul.


London protesters and Istanbul bombers try to send a message--the same message.

Fewer people than expected showed up for "antiwar" protests in London today; the Associated Press reports the count was "at least 50,000," well below the 100,000 organizers had predicted.

What BS. Even the Police in London said there were about 100,000 protesters-and the organizers usually criticize the police estimates as being lower than the actual turnout.

[thunderous_funker]

The "Liberal" media strikes again, eh?

[eklipse]

I can't help but wonder how effective this form of protest really is. I seriously doubt Bush and Blair are going to lie awake tonight, trembling at the knowledge that 110,000 people are pretty pissed off with them. I doubt they will spare a thought for the protesters - standing in the cold, chanting and waving banners - as they sit down to whatever banquet they are attending this evening. 110,000 is, after all, a drop in the ocean compared to the 60 million strong population of Great Britain - you are talking about less than 0.002%. What are these 110,000 people really going to achieve? Why would/should Bush and Blair take any notice?

People protested against the war in Iraq - what did it achieve? Nothing. Why? Because no serious, authoritative body was willing to intervene. It's like Spliffdaddy says, America is the only world power willing to go all the way - and America knows this. America knew nobody was ultimately going to stand it's way, neither physically nor economically, as it marched towards Iraq's borders. Opponents of the war could talk as much as they want, chant as much as they want, wave banners as much as they want and burn effigies as much as they want - but, at the end of the day, the sole result of their protest was a sense of self-satisfaction and gratification. They achieved nothing. Iraq still got invaded, Iraq still got occupied, thousands still died and continue to die - the protesters are still waving their banners.

[Krusty]

Hmmm ... y'know, something like 30-40% of people in the US work non-standard shifts (evenings, nights, weekends, rotating ... whatever). I don't know what the numbers are in the UK. But I'm sure that plenty of gainfully employed people had a Thursday off ... or considered it important enough to take off.

edit: wow, my post reminds me of something wdlove would say

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by finboy:
I wonder how many of those protesters are just jobless losers?

That's my contribution to the knee-jerk response.

erm...you guys DO realize you're performing essentially the same function in this thread as the protestors are in the street...right?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I can't help but wonder how effective this form of protest really is. I seriously doubt Bush and Blair are going to lie awake tonight, trembling at the knowledge that 110,000 people are pretty pissed off with them. I doubt they will spare a thought for the protesters - standing in the cold, chanting and waving banners - as they sit down to whatever banquet they are attending this evening. 110,000 is, after all, a drop in the ocean compared to the 60 million strong population of Great Britain - you are talking about less than 0.002%. What are these 110,000 people really going to achieve? Why would/should Bush and Blair take any notice?

People protested against the war in Iraq - what did it achieve? Nothing. Why? Because no serious, authoritative body was willing to intervene. It's like Spliffdaddy says, America is the only world power willing to go all the way - and America knows this. America knew nobody was ultimately going to stand it's way, neither physically nor economically, as it marched towards Iraq's borders. Opponents of the war could talk as much as they want, chant as much as they want, wave banners as much as they want and burn effigies as much as they want - but, at the end of the day, the sole result of their protest was a sense of self-satisfaction and gratification. They achieved nothing. Iraq still got invaded, Iraq still got occupied, thousands still died and continue to die - the protesters are still waving their banners.

Protesting is on a hierarchy of action. At one extreme of this is grumbling under your breath and moving on with your day. At the other extreme is full out revolt and war. Somewhere in between those two extremes lies: talking to others, voting, protests, civil disobedience, etc. Think of protests as being like a dog barking or a snake rattling its tail - they're warnings to those in power that they ignore the people at their peril, and the peril is increasing.

It's better than all or nothing, wouldn't you say?

Also, remember that if 0.02% are willing to go out of their way to make a show of their dissatisfaction, then there's a whole buttload more who are talking and willing to vote based on the issue.

The public display of numbers and solidarity is also comforting to the protesters psychologically, it lets them know that they don't face the world alone on this issue.

So, no, protests are not meaningless.

BlackGriffen

[Shaddim]

Bush isn't going to do a damned thing about a group of whining protestors, if anything it'll just give him more resolve. You really haven't figured out how stubborn he is yet, have you? You really don't know what most men from Texas are like, do you?

Let me let you guys in on a secret. Who from the other side of the political fence has gotten more play and support from Dubya? C'mon, think. Now, ponder what their attitude and demeanor was like in regard to dealing with Bush?

Now, if you "still haven't found what you're looking for" and "Desire" to continue making fun of him. Then "Achtung Baby", your "Pride" won't help you get "Peace on Earth".

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
What BS. Even the Police in London said there were about 100,000 protesters-and the organizers usually criticize the police estimates as being lower than the actual turnout.

The higherst (final) estimated total I've seen, after all the aerial photos and tallies were in as of 10:45 pm EST, were: is this

The Stop the War Coalition, which organized the march, said 200,000 people participated; the police estimate was 70,000.

- about the same amount of people who show up at a stadium for an NFL or big-conference NCAA football game every weekend in the US. Regardless of the total +- a few thousand, it was nowhere near the 200,000 the STW coalition tried to propagandize.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Also, remember that if 0.02% are willing to go out of their way to make a show of their dissatisfaction, then there's a whole buttload more who are talking and willing to vote based on the issue.

Well then, we'll see come next November.

[Dave Brasgalla]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
about the same amount of people who show up at a stadium for an NFL or big-conference NCAA football game every weekend in the US.

Hmmm... so using Eklipse's percentages argument, does that mean that the NFL and NCAA are meaningless?



For my part, I feel that one must speak out about that which one feels is wrong. It doesn't matter if you are the only voice (or one of only a few) doing so. In fact, it then becomes even more important.

I do not however, quite get this comment by the President:
"It's a fantastic thing to come to a country where people are able to express their views."

Coming from... where?


Also, I rather received the impression that the main intention of the demonstration was *anti-Bush*, not "anti-war". That's an important distinction, in my opinion. I believe that one can be be displeased and distressed by the Bush administration's policies and actions whilst still allowing tacit approval of the use of military force in global security situations. The first circumstance does not preclude the second - although there is crossover amongst the demographic, to be sure.

At the same time, one can support the ideal of Blair and Bush in their attempt to defeat terrorism, and yet be opposed to the methods employed.

Take a comment like this:

from CNN:
"Blair said he thinks it is 'bizarre' that people are protesting U.S.-led efforts to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, given how those regimes brutalized their own people."

That's a facile chain of reasoning, as well as a gross over-simplification of the situation. It also dovetails quite nicely with the raison officielle de la semaine regarding those two situations, which perhaps explains it.

[eklipse]

The problem with this whole scenario is that Bush and Blair are playing a game of 'threat backed up with force' - if no one on 'the other side' is willing to play the same game, then there is no game - there is no détente to be derived from stalemate - and, consequently, Bush and Blair are free to act with impunity.

Protesting is fine, it serves a purpose, but, you don't stand a chance of stopping a tank once it starts rolling - unless you are willing to stand in front of the tank. You can't hope to stop a missile in flight - unless you're prepared to fire one of your own.

[Troll]

I think the protests achieve an enormous amount. The massive protests last year helped galvanise opinion against the war. It brought those people that thought it was a bad idea out into the open and helped generate a general anti-war mood in Europe. Protesting like this, apart from being a vent, shows fellow citizens that there is an alternative view. I don't think there is any denying that this alternative view is becoming stronger. Polls show that less and less people support the war and that has to be attributed in part to the publicity for the anti-war ideals that protesting gets. How else do you get the message "there is an alternative to war" onto the BBC between all the WOT reports? The more these ideas are in the mainstream press, the more powerful they become. Besides, if you give up on protests as having any function in a democracy, then you basically give up on the notion of democracy. The peace between the citizenry and the state is a social contract that we can break by protesting or rioting or removing them from office if they go too far. Protesting is, as black griffen said, a step on the road to revolution.

The second thing to say is that these protesters (and the bombs in Turkey) spoilt a lot of the photo opportunities that Bush and Blair had arranged. They had hoped to emerge from this looking like powerful, principled leaders. By the end of the week, they seemed more isolated than ever. It's become much more about 2 individuals who are for the war than about two countries that are for the war. That is an important shift too.

[Sherwin]

Protesters = 110,000

Protesters coming up with alternative realistic methods of achieving World peace = 0

---

Protesters from yesterday backing Amnesty International two years ago over their observations of human rights abuses in Iraq = 110,000

Protesters from yesterday offering alternative realistic methods of bringing human rights abuses in Iraq to an end = 0

---

Case closed.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Protesters = 110,000

Protesters coming up with alternative realistic methods of achieving World peace = 0

World peace??? In the absence of WMD and links to international terrorism, how was Iraq a threat to world peace?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Troll:
World peace??? In the absence of WMD and links to international terrorism, how was Iraq a threat to world peace?

Ask Kuwait.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Bush isn't going to do a damned thing about a group of whining protestors, if anything it'll just give him more resolve. You really haven't figured out how stubborn he is yet, have you? You really don't know what most men from Texas are like, do you?

Terrorists aren't going to do a damned thing about the war on terror, if anything it'll just give them more resolve. You really haven't figured out how stubborn they are yet, have you? You really don't know what most terrorists are like, do you?

[Dave Brasgalla]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Protesters coming up with alternative realistic methods of achieving World peace = 0

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought yesterday's protesters' plan for achieving a more peaceful world was quite plainly to replace President Bush with someone else. One may not agree with them, but it is a realistic alternative, and certainly at least as workable as Bush's "war on terror".

Who that replacement might be remains a crucial sticking point - or are you of the belief that no one could possibly lead the US as both a soveriegn state and as a member of the larger world more capably than the current president? Fair enough, if you are... I am just asking because I am interested.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Ask Kuwait.

Oh right, the US invaded Iraq in 2002 to deal with the threat that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 posed to world peace!

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Dave Brasgalla:
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought yesterday's protesters' plan for achieving a more peaceful world was quite plainly to replace President Bush with someone else. One may not agree with them, but it is a realistic alternative, and certainly at least as workable as Bush's "war on terror".

This is the point. The people protesting always want to replace the current method of doing things but never offer a valid alternative. To have a valid argument, one must know what options you have as a replacement and how that might work out should it be put into action.

Originally posted by Dave Brasgalla:
Who that replacement might be remains a crucial sticking point - or are you of the belief that no one could possibly lead the US as both a soveriegn state and as a member of the larger world more capably than the current president? Fair enough, if you are... I am just asking because I am interested.

I'm quite certain that any other President operating under the current circumstances would be protested against in the same manner.

Such is the nature of the current protesters - they're "rent a mob" looking for their next big day out. It'll be a G* summit next, then maybe an arms fair, then maybe a WTO meeting. Same people, same protests.

They need hobbies.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh right, the US invaded Iraq in 2002 to deal with the threat that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 posed to world peace!

So... Did the Iraq leadership change in between 1990 and 2003? You know, to a leadership less likely to invade its neighbours and destabilise the area?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Such is the nature of the current protesters - they're "rent a mob" looking for their next big day out. It'll be a G* summit next, then maybe an arms fair, then maybe a WTO meeting. Same people, same protests.

They need hobbies.

Ah, the famous Freedom Fries logic. The opposition is but a handful of loonies making themselves seem far more important than they are.

I have spoken to some of these people. There's no doubt some of them have protested other events too, but the majority are not "rent a mob." Most of the people I talked to at Buckingham Palace had come in from the countryside; they were 50 years old plus in many cases, had jobs or farms and wanted to show their disapproval for Bush and Blair and their policies.

Besides, I'd like to know how 100,000 people who don't have jobs manage to afford to jet around the world protesting "G* Summits, Arms Fairs and WTO Meetings." I think you're hiding from the fact that free trade and war issues actually kind of get on people's tits!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Terrorists aren't going to do a damned thing about the war on terror, if anything it'll just give them more resolve. You really haven't figured out how stubborn they are yet, have you? You really don't know what most terrorists are like, do you?

Well, that was just so cute. I suppose you missed what I was saying, oh well.

I figure it'll just escalate until all the muslim extremists in that area (or anywhere else) are killed. I'm not advocating it, but he with the most firepower will leave the charred carcasses of his enemies in his wake.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
So... Did the Iraq leadership change in between 1990 and 2003? You know, to a leadership less likely to invade its neighbours and destabilise the area?

Was Iraq a danger to international peace in 2002? The answer is no. Two thirds of his airspace was being overflown daily by the USAF. He couldn't have even amassed troops on any of his borders without the West instantly knowing. He had neither the desire nor the ability to invade any of his neighbours. He had no WMD and no clandestine contacts with people who might have inflicted harm on anyone else.

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome." GW Bush Snr.

Removing the leader wasn't necessary to remove the threat to peace.

[Dave Brasgalla]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I'm quite certain that any other President operating under the current circumstances would be protested against in the same manner.

Perhaps... if by "operating under the current circumstances", you mean someone else in the office taking the same course of action using the same methods, I am sure you are correct. However, that wasn't the intent of my question. To wit: do you think that someone else elected to the office of President could take a different course than Bush has taken and could better achieve the goal (a more peaceful, stablized world)? In short, do you feel there no better course than the one Bush has taken, no higher vision than his, no better possible outcome than the current one?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
So... Did the Iraq leadership change in between 1990 and 2003? You know, to a leadership less likely to invade its neighbours and destabilise the area?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Troll:
I think you're hiding from the fact that free trade and war issues actually kind of get on people's tits!

I think you're hiding from the fact that most protesters get on most people's tits.

Perhaps this wouldn't be the case if just one of them came up with a viable alternative solution to the World's problems.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Dave Brasgalla:
do you think that someone else elected to the office of President could take a different course than Bush has taken and could better achieve the goal (a more peaceful, stablized world)?

No. What we're forgetting is that Bush didn't decide to do this by himself - there's an awful lot of substantially intelligent people behind him who came to the conclusion that this was the only viable action.

Originally posted by Dave Brasgalla:
In short, do you feel there no better course than the one Bush has taken, no higher vision than his, no better possible outcome than the current one?

This sums it up. I don't believe there was any other option.