Anti-War Demonstration in NYC & around the world - 2/15/03

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:31 am

Bush Administration behind decision to block march in NYC

"The Bush administration - which is in the midst of trying to sell the war to the public - filed a brief urging the judges to uphold denial of the permit. And the Bloomberg administration has no intention of forcing a St. Patrick's Day standstill instead of a parade - even though it's bigger and likely more raucous."

Free Speech Trampled in Standstill

G'Argst · Post by **G'Argst** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:48 am

Food for thought.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Feb13.html

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:57 am

I am just amazed that there hasn’t been more coverage of the protest in the media (at least from my perspective out in the southwest). Hardly anything in the news about it today. I guess the possibility of going to war makes better headlines than the possibility of not going to war.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:04 am

I agree, Gwally. I think CNN and all the others can't wait to have this war - better ratings and more advertising dollars for them. I'm sure they'll once again be totally compliant with the US Govt's ban on media on the battlefield, so that we never will know what actually happens. Remember Gulf War I? It was like watching a bad Atari video game. Well, all the newspapers and tv stations are corporate-owned now, and represent corporate interests.

You might like this website:
NYC Indy Media Center

Littiz · Post by **Littiz** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:11 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
Thanks for digging that up, Sleepy. Eerily prophetic.

@AT - This protest was not like protests of the 60's in that it was not made up only of young people, or only super-liberals. I met investment bankers and what-not. They came from all walks of life. This is the problem the anti-war people have with the US's argument for going to war with Iraq. Bush's argument seems to be: "Iraq has ties with Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein is a really bad guy, and Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Let's go to war BEFORE they do anything."
Problems the protestors have with the above argument:
Everyone agrees that Saddam is a bad guy, but so is the leader of China, North Korea and a host of other countries. Why not go to war with them?
Iraq has WMD. Yes, but the USA and Russia have by far the most WPM, as does India, Pakistan, North Korea, China, and so on. Again, why not go to war with them?
The only hope then of convincing people is to show a tie between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, which neither Bush nor Blair have been able to do to anyone's satisfaction.
Finally, we are very uncomfortable with the notion of attacking another country that has not attacked us first.

Other things the protestors fear:
This will fuel the terrorist groups, and they will increase substantially.
The war will drag on indefinitely, as did Vietnam.
The war will accomplish nothing leaving the same regime in power, as did Vietnam.
Veterans of the Gulf War are concerned about the casualties that will be suffered by soldiers, since this will be a war fought in their own cities, or in very rugged mountainous terrain - not on a flat empty desert in another country like Kuwait.
Even the military estimates around a quarter of a million casualties.

Also, for those who think the protests accomplish nothing, check out this article in the NY Times today.
A New Power in the Streets

Nice post, Voodoo Dali.
You are right, there's no justification for this war.
(anyway Saddam *has* the weapons, proofs or not)

@Der-Dragen: I know, but terrorists' opinions have no value, as it happened for King George's one..
They remain what they are.

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:23 pm

at99. Leave it alone, what's the point?

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:35 pm

Only 750,000 attended the London rally according to the police.

The organisers said 2 million.

Choose who you want to believe on such a minor point.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:02 pm

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Only 750,000 attended the London rally according to the police.

The organisers said 2 million.

Choose who you want to believe on such a minor point.

You don't have to choose to believe either.

The NYPD use the following to estimate crowds in NYC - it takes 7000 people to fill one city block. I personally witnessed how many were on the streets I marched on, and I could see from aerial photos the rest.
Lexington Ave. - filled from 40th St to 72nd St. 7000x32 blocks =224,000
Third Avenue - from other people I've spoken to - 40th St (where I started) up to 67th st. 7000x27=189,000
Second Avenue - ditto - 189,000
First Avenue - 52nd to 72nd St. 7000x20=140,000
Plus there were other people trapped at 23rd St., Union Square and Times Square.
So, city estimates for the rally state 100,000 (clearly only counting the people who were not prevented by the police from getting there)
Organizers are giving a conservative estimate of 500,000
If you use the NYPD formula, and aerial photos, you come up with 750,000. So, I totally believe the organizers in the UK that 2 million showed up. I've seen those photos!
Also, I've heard from friends in Williamsburg Brooklyn, that the "L" train was inexplicably closed around 12 PM, and many couldn't make it to Manhattan.
Welcome to the Patriot Act II, people!

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:04 pm

Pepper Spray

RE: Pepper Spray:

AP-- At least 14 killed, others critically injured after "stampede" at Chicago nightclub, according to police and fire officials.

I know this is way off topic, but in light of Voo's recent injuries, I thought it might be worth noting how important good judgement is when trying to maintain security in a croud. Sometimes the cure is far worse than the cold

Here is the link.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 4:19 pm

Re: Pepper Spray

Originally posted by Scayde
RE: Pepper Spray:

AP-- At least 14 killed, others critically injured after "stampede" at Chicago nightclub, according to police and fire officials.

I know this is way off topic, but in light of Voo's recent injuries, I thought it might be worth noting how important good judgement is when trying to maintain security in a croud. Sometimes the cure is far worse than the cold

Here is the link.

Sounds to me like that club will be out of business soon from all the lawsuits. You can't lock fire exits!

I also wonder about the constant state of fear our government has instilled in people with all the code orange alerts...I'm curious if people thought a terrorist or something was in there and went into a blind panic.

From what I've learned about pepper spray, which has been responsible for over 100 deaths (from use on civilians by police) since 1995, it is far from harmless and IMO should not be sold to the public. Ironically, it is considered a chemical warfare agent, and while it is prohibited for use in warfare, it is okay for civilians and police to use! It was originally used to deal with bear attacks by hunters, then dog attacks by postal workers. Use on civilians by police only began around 1990. Pepper spray is 300 times stronger than the pepper found in jalapenos, and the kind that the police are allowed to use is 5 times stronger than what is sold to the public.

I have put in complaints (along with all the others who were sprayed) with the NYPD Civilian Complaint Review Board, the NYC ACLU, and Mayor Bloomberg. I don't know what will come of it, since I couldn't get the officer's name or badge number in all the mayhem. One thing I do know is that I was not doing anything to deserve that, and the officer sprayed it right into my face from a distance of less than 2 feet, which goes against police guidelines, since pepper spray can damage the eyes. BTW, Even though I am far from being a conservative, I actually thought Bloomberg was okay before this march. Now, I've made a 180 degree turnaround. Shame on him.

at99 · Post by **at99** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 5:22 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
Thanks for digging that up, Sleepy. Eerily prophetic.

@AT - This protest was not like protests of the 60's in that it was not made up only of young people, or only super-liberals. I met investment bankers and what-not. They came from all walks of life. This is the problem the anti-war people have with the US's argument for going to war with Iraq. Bush's argument seems to be: "Iraq has ties with Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein is a really bad guy, and Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Let's go to war BEFORE they do anything."
Problems the protestors have with the above argument:
Everyone agrees that Saddam is a bad guy, but so is the leader of China, North Korea and a host of other countries. Why not go to war with them?..[/URL]

If you call 12 years , 17 resolutions and hundreds of thousands of people dead by sadam nothing then ......
You should really know the arguments better and I should not be argueing with you.

at99 · Post by **at99** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 5:25 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Do they? I thought they still hadn't proved it.

Because there isn't really one, why would a group made up substantially of the Kurdish support Iraq, frankly it just wouldn't happen.

After all this is contraveining several laws as well as probably going against the UN. After all this apparently some people are going to take Blair to court for breaking the law

.

I dont agree with your arguments mr sleep but I just would like to point out the majority kurds definitely would claim 'you are not for peace if you leave sadam alone!'.

Obviously the peace rallies (anti- western demo) failed to convince the EU, Kofi anan (UN guy), and US.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:21 am

Now this is an interesting link a friend of mine told me about. I've never held much respect for major news agencies in the first place, but this seems almost unthinkable especially in this day of age.

Moral of the story kids

Have more then one source when it comes to important issues like Iraq.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 4:00 am

Originally posted by at99
I dont agree with your arguments mr sleep but I just would like to point out the majority kurds definitely would claim 'you are not for peace if you leave sadam alone!'.

Obviously the peace rallies (anti- western demo) failed to convince the EU, Kofi anan (UN guy), and US.

Which arguments? That there isn't a link from Iraq to Al Queda? Or something else? Your right there, the Kurds certainly want the Saddam regime removed from power.

Failed to convince them now maybe, it might have a lasting implication later down the line.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 4:41 pm

Protestors in Antarctica

A protest also took place in Antarctica - 50 at McMurdo Station and 5 at the South Pole. The only continent never to have a war...

See pics here

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 4:52 pm

You mean "Ice Station Zebra" was fiction then?! Aw crap!

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:58 am

The problem for the anti-war folks is that they don't have a viable alternative solution. Saddam Hussein will always stay one step ahead of the inspectors, but at the same time will be doing everything possible to avoid any substantive changes in his operations. Both Colin Powell and Hans Blix know that Hussein is hiding stuff, but he's too smart to get his hand caught in the cookie jar.

Dubya is partly right that the reason why inspections are going on today is the threat of force. Why didn't Clinton rattle the collective American sabre a little more and force inspections? If the inspections continue the way they have been, Iraq will not be deprived of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.

However, I do not believe that invading Iraq is the desired solution. For one, it sets a horrible precedent (even though Dubya's dad set a similar one back in 1989). Just because one country doesn't like another country's leader, does that give the first country the right to invade the other? We did it to Panama, but that didn't have the geo-political impact of us invading Iraq because Dubya doesn't like Saddam Hussein.

Second, considering the level on anti-Americanism in the world, particularly in the middle east, is a large military presence something we want in that region? Third, the whole "either you're with us or against us" thing has grown tiresome, but Dubya doesn't know any other tune and it's alienating potential allies and driving people in the middle away from our cause. Ultimately, it's self-defeating.

So what should be done about this? If it is determined that Iraq should not possess any weapons of mass destruction, and the world decides that full transparency is required by Iraq to prove that it has none (this has been done already), then there is no reason for Iraq to object to any site being visited by weapons inpsectors at any time.

Here's what I would do: Park a squadron of B-52 bombers loaded with JDAMs over Iraq. Hans Blix or one of his associates can demand to see any site at any time for any reason. If Iraq refuses to allow an immediate inspection of that site, the B-52s level the site.

The onus must be on Saddam Hussein to prove that he is not hiding anything, but somehow, he has managed to convice the public that Dubya must justify going to war. I believe that a land war in Asia (one of the classic blunders in history) is unnecessary and undesirable. I also believe that in the long run, invading Iraq to get rid of Hussein will cause us more problems that it was worth. I think it's unlikely, but I hope that there will be some alternative resolution to this, because I don't think that ultimately there are going to be any winners.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:36 am

I admit, I don't honestly understand the concern with getting Hussein to destroy/remove his weapons of mass destruction. Granted, he has 'em. In that geopolitical area, he'd be an idiot if he didn't, and a very dead idiot whose nation was quickly taken over by some other dictator and clique, quick to build up a hoard of such weapons.

But Hussein hasn't used his weapons, nor is he likely to do so, knowing the consequences. He's not a megalomaniac; despite the comparisons to Hitler, there's no evidence of a desire to lead a sacred crusade or plaster his picture all over every piece of wall space. He's a thug (no offense, RandomThug), shrewd enough to play all the national games right: sane, with Iago's cynical sanity (to misquote Huxley). He only invaded before when he thought he had the blessings of the US, thanks to the incompetence of Ambassador April Glaspie.

It seems to me that the most likely way to encourage, say, India to use its nuclear weapons of mass destruction is for Pakistan to threaten an invasion; ditto, Israel, if its Arab neighbors did the same. Does anyone see a pattern, here? I would think that if the US really wants to prove Hussein has these weapons, they should invade. That's bound to bring them out.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 10:15 pm

A little update:

I spoke with a guy from the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board today. I'm supposed to go in on Tuesday and make a sworn statement regarding getting pepper-sprayed, and then I'll have to go in again and pick the officer out of a photo line-up.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 10:43 pm

Voodoo,
I hope it goes okay....

I feel that far more than just oil is involved...
but of a friend of mine sent me this...