10,000 Anti-War Protesters in London

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-09-27 05:09pm

They keep talking, but they're not really saying anything

In France, about 3,000 demonstrators marched through central Paris on Saturday to protest the U.S. occupation in Iraq and call for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians

Good God! Three thousand Frenchmen! Bush's in trouble now!

What the hell do they want? An end to war? What war? The war is over, people! What remains is peacekeeping, but I suppose 'Withdraw From the Middle East and Allow Iraq to Collapse into a Bloody Mess of Chaos and Strife!' isn't a positive enough message.

These people are only still harping on the war because 'America Blows Goats' doesn't sound as poetic as 'No Blood for Oil'[/quote]

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-27 05:11pm

Silly Hemlock. Just because the war has ended, is no reason for the anti-war movement to end.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-27 05:22pm

Wow, ten thousand! How many hundreds of thousands was it turned out to protest a ban on fox hunting?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-27 05:23pm

Durran Korr wrote:Silly Hemlock. Just because the war has ended, is no reason for the anti-war movement to end.

Don't be so naive. The war is still going, and the anti-war movement will never end as long as nations have the ability to wage war.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-09-27 05:33pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Silly Hemlock. Just because the war has ended, is no reason for the anti-war movement to end.
Don't be so naive. The war is still going, and the anti-war movement will never end as long as nations have the ability to wage war.

Click the link, chief. They're SPECIFICALLY protesting the Iraq war and demanding the coalition pull out immediately. The fun part is, if the coalition did that, the ensuing chaos and whatever new dictator rose out of the fray would ALSO be blamed on the US.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-27 05:34pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Silly Hemlock. Just because the war has ended, is no reason for the anti-war movement to end.
Don't be so naive. The war is still going, and the anti-war movement will never end as long as nations have the ability to wage war.

There is one attack for every 10,000 soldiers a day. Technically the war may not be over, but realistically the bulk of the fighting is finished.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-27 05:37pm

RedImperator wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Silly Hemlock. Just because the war has ended, is no reason for the anti-war movement to end.
Don't be so naive. The war is still going, and the anti-war movement will never end as long as nations have the ability to wage war.
Click the link, chief. They're SPECIFICALLY protesting the Iraq war

So? The war is still going isn't it?

and demanding the coalition pull out immediately. The fun part is, if the coalition did that, the ensuing chaos and whatever new dictator rose out of the fray would ALSO be blamed on the US.

Sucks to be you.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-27 05:48pm

So? The war is still going isn't it?

Only technically. There's still resistance to the occupying force but it's really now more peackeeping and rebuilding than war.

Sucks to be you.

No, sucks to be an seriously dense and irrelevant protestor. The war's over and at this point they're going to do Iraq more harm than good.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-27 06:11pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Sucks to be you.
No, sucks to be an seriously dense and irrelevant protestor. The war's over and at this point they're going to do Iraq more harm than good.

"The war is over" keep repeating that fantasy. Protesting is not irrelevant, believe it or not but Governments sweat when registered voters get together to protest something. Yeah? Do more harm then good? In what way?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-27 06:24pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Sucks to be you.
No, sucks to be an seriously dense and irrelevant protestor. The war's over and at this point they're going to do Iraq more harm than good.
"The war is over" keep repeating that fantasy. Protesting is not irrelevant, believe it or not but Governments sweat when registered voters get together to protest something. Yeah? Do more harm then good? In what way?

The war is over. The US is now occupying the country. There might be resistance but the war is over. The crowd that's still hung up on the "No blood for oil" and "Hands of Iraq" are irrelevant since they're harping on a dead issue.

That's completely seperate from those that want to see Bush and Blair called to account for the lies and mistakes made in the lead up to the war.

As for harm, demanding that the US pull out while blocking their nations from contributing a UN force will do more harm to Iraq than leaving US troops there. There's no government and law apart from what has been re-established. If we do what they want and pull out there will be a huge civil war that'll devestate Iraq. By far worse than what is happening now.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-27 07:15pm

Stormbringer wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: No, sucks to be an seriously dense and irrelevant protestor. The war's over and at this point they're going to do Iraq more harm than good.
"The war is over" keep repeating that fantasy. Protesting is not irrelevant, believe it or not but Governments sweat when registered voters get together to protest something. Yeah? Do more harm then good? In what way?
The war is over. The US is now occupying the country. There might be resistance but the war is over.

The War may be over, but the war isn't. But let's not get into a semantics debate, ok? The protestors shouting "No More War" were clearly refering to the war, not the War.

The crowd that's still hung up on the "No blood for oil" and "Hands of Iraq" are irrelevant since they're harping on a dead issue.

Those issues aren't dead. How are they dead?

That's completely seperate from those that want to see Bush and Blair called to account for the lies and mistakes made in the lead up to the war.

Yes, plenty of things to protest about, aren't there?

As for harm, demanding that the US pull out while blocking their nations from contributing a UN force will do more harm to Iraq than leaving US troops there.

Well, if the US did completely pull out, there is no way the UN could muster even a remotely comparable replacement. But you're not reading between the lines. Those protesting UN troop deployments do so because the US is running the show. If it was the UN in charge, there'd be no dramas with sending countrymen as UN troops, under the UN, to Iraq.

There's no government and law apart from what has been re-established. If we do what they want and pull out there will be a huge civil war that'll devestate Iraq. By far worse than what is happening now.

This so called huge civil war which you're predicting won't happen, because if the US pulls out, the UN will move in. And that will silence the majority of these protestors.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-27 07:19pm

BoredShirtless wrote: Well, if the US did completely pull out, there is no way the UN could muster even a remotely comparable replacement. But you're not reading between the lines. Those protesting UN troop deployments do so because the US is running the show. If it was the UN in charge, there'd be no dramas with sending countrymen as UN troops, under the UN, to Iraq.

And they wouldn't protest the pull out of US troops anymore either. It's all about the US being in control. That's the root of those protests.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-27 07:21pm

Well, if the US did completely pull out, there is no way the UN could muster even a remotely comparable replacement. But you're not reading between the lines. Those protesting UN troop deployments do so because the US is running the show. If it was the UN in charge, there'd be no dramas with sending countrymen as UN troops, under the UN, to Iraq.

There would be drama about the UN again failing to provide adequate security for its people. Which would be the fault of the United States, again.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-27 07:29pm

We're stuck in a no-win situation with the radical anti-war protesters
in the left, vis a vis Iraq.

If we stay in, they harp about guerilla attacks and "315 dead troops",
if we leave, then the country descends into chaos, and we get blamed
anyway...

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-09-27 07:40pm

I just think it's funny that they are still harping over us being the main nation in control of the country even after we asked for help in the occupation. France and Germany had their chances to get in, twice, and they didn't, before and after, and now they are bitching because we are in control.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-09-27 08:45pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: The crowd that's still hung up on the "No blood for oil" and "Hands of Iraq" are irrelevant since they're harping on a dead issue.
Those issues aren't dead. How are they dead?

We've already traded blood for oil and we've already got our hands on Iraq. Might as well protest against the Vietnam War.

otter · Post by **otter** » 2003-09-27 09:44pm

MKSheppard wrote:We're stuck in a no-win situation with the radical anti-war protesters
in the left, vis a vis Iraq.

If we stay in, they harp about guerilla attacks and "315 dead troops",
if we leave, then the country descends into chaos, and we get blamed
anyway...

Hey Shep, like your avatar....I see you must have finished reading "The Victorious Opposition"

Don't give away any spoilers, I'm only 3/4 of the way thru

(other than the South's chances on winning "AWW2"

)

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-09-27 10:12pm

Apparently, they must have set their calendars back 6 months.

Anyway, once we withdraw troops, what do they want us to do? Reinstate Saddam Hussein? Allow the country to fall into chaos so they can blame it on America again? Allow them to run it?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-28 12:46am

Nathan F wrote:I just think it's funny that they are still harping over us being the main nation in control of the country even after we asked for help in the occupation.

Why is that funny? You honestly can't understand why these nations would want the US to relinquish control of the conquered state that it supposedly "liberated"?

Here's a hint as to what they're thinking: if the rhetoric about "liberation, not conquest" was true, why would the US not want to relinquish control of its occupied territories?

PS. The US did not ask for help. Bush demanded it, while refusing to concede anything in return. If you can't see why they have a problem with this, you're either blind or willfully self-delusional.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-28 01:18am

Stormbringer wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: No, sucks to be an seriously dense and irrelevant protestor. The war's over and at this point they're going to do Iraq more harm than good.
"The war is over" keep repeating that fantasy. Protesting is not irrelevant, believe it or not but Governments sweat when registered voters get together to protest something. Yeah? Do more harm then good? In what way?
The war is over. The US is now occupying the country. There might be resistance but the war is over. The crowd that's still hung up on the "No blood for oil" and "Hands of Iraq" are irrelevant since they're harping on a dead issue.

That's completely seperate from those that want to see Bush and Blair called to account for the lies and mistakes made in the lead up to the war.

Conventional war has ended but it remains to be seen if US effort will be succesfull if US soldiers ares till being attacked. As for dead issues..if a substancial portion of voters in a democray disagree with something it is far from a dead issue. This is intermingled with the overall cock-up of the occupation.

As for harm, demanding that the US pull out while blocking their nations from contributing a UN force will do more harm to Iraq than leaving US troops there. There's no government and law apart from what has been re-established. If we do what they want and pull out there will be a huge civil war that'll devestate Iraq. By far worse than what is happening now.

I have to agree here, the only thing holding the place together is US, and others, troops. The question is the governace and sovreignty of Iraq and how and when that should be sorted out.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-28 01:55am

Stuart Mackey wrote:This is intermingled with the overall cock-up of the occupation.

No, it starts getting to be a cockup when about 10,000 Americans are dead,
then the Public starts saying WTF are we doing there....that's always been
the general rule of thumb in every war that wasn't vital to national survival.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-28 01:57am

MKSheppard wrote:
No, it starts getting to be a cockup when about 10,000 Americans are dead,
then the Public starts saying WTF are we doing there....that's always been
the general rule of thumb in every war that wasn't vital to national survival.

Well maybe not ten thousand, but the death toll at least needs to reach the same level as the number of men lost each year to accidents, which right now is three times larger.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-28 02:36am

MKSheppard wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:This is intermingled with the overall cock-up of the occupation.
No, it starts getting to be a cockup when about 10,000 Americans are dead,
then the Public starts saying WTF are we doing there....that's always been
the general rule of thumb in every war that wasn't vital to national survival.

Shep, its been a cock up since day dot. You didnt go in there witha proper plan for a government and you are not exactly welcome by the local ppopulation. And you have soldiers dying for no appreciable reason.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-09-28 02:38am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
No, it starts getting to be a cockup when about 10,000 Americans are dead,
then the Public starts saying WTF are we doing there....that's always been
the general rule of thumb in every war that wasn't vital to national survival.
Well maybe not ten thousand, but the death toll at least needs to reach the same level as the number of men lost each year to accidents, which right now is three times larger.

Ohh, I see, a death toll has to be of a certain level to make something ok..intersting theory that

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-28 02:57am

Stuart Mackey wrote:you are not exactly welcome by the local ppopulation.

Then why is it virtually 95% of all of these guerilla incidents always seem
to happen within the "Baghdad Triangle"?