Massive World Protests Tomorrow

Nubclear · February 14, 2003, 23:42

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid...tiwar_movement

Tomorrow the world will show its unity against a war in Iraq (the UN has already done it). I plan on joining the protests scheduled tomorrow in Logan City

What are your plans?

Asher · February 14, 2003, 23:47

I plan to sleep in and perhaps play some games.

Nubclear · February 14, 2003, 23:48

Oh bah you.

Agathon · February 14, 2003, 23:49

Freeze my a** off in downtown Toronto, with all the other "Philosophers for Peace".

Asher · February 14, 2003, 23:50

The sad thing is, my actions will have as much impact on the world as all of the loons dancing nude in the streets with "Save Saddam" t-shirts tied around their waists.

Nubclear · February 14, 2003, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
The sad thing is, my actions will have as much impact on the world as all of the loons dancing nude in the streets with "Save Saddam" t-shirts.

So? Its still fun to do.

Some friends I have plan on burning 100 US flags

Drake Tungsten · February 14, 2003, 23:51

Quote:

What are your plans?

I'm going to buy a new suit and get a haircut for my JET Program interview next Friday. Then I'm probably going to do some homework before going out and getting pissed. The bars should be a lot more fun with all the hippies occupied elsewhere.

DanS · February 14, 2003, 23:53

Burning the US flag is woeful lack of sensitivity to the ultimate target audience of these protests: the American people. Bush will keep his foot on the accelerator if he knows the American people are behind him, as he does now.

Nubclear · February 14, 2003, 23:54

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Burning the US flag is woeful lack of sensitivity to the ultimate audience of these protests: the American people. Bush will keep his foot on the accelerator if he knows the American people are behind him, as he does now.

The American people have already voiced their opinion: No war without UN backing.

DanS · February 14, 2003, 23:54

War without the UN, but with select allies, has 57% support.

Nubclear · February 14, 2003, 23:55

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
War without the UN, but with select allies, has 57% support.

Really?

Though it is expected that support for war will rise during the weeks after the State of the Union.

DanS · February 14, 2003, 23:57

Yep, really. Realize that this is much higher support than Bush I had in Gulf War I.

Who has been spreading this misinformation about the support Bush has among the American people?

Seneca · February 15, 2003, 00:01

I guess the select allies would principally involve Britain - but Blair has made it politically impossible for himself to join in without a second UN resolution.

DanS · February 15, 2003, 00:05

We'll see. He has certainly taken political risks. He might just bite the bullet and hope for a good outcome in the war.

Seneca · February 15, 2003, 00:16

He's made commitments and 'forgotten' them before now, to be sure - but never at such a politically supercharged moment.

I remain optimistic that, even assuming he's only out for himself (assumed in most cases more often than is strictly fair), the potential diplomatic damage caused by a rift with Washington will be dwarfed by the political damage at home if he goes in without the UN.

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 00:17

I don't know what I will do. I'm against the war, but probably not enough to go protest. I seriously doubt that the majority of Americans support this war.

DanS · February 15, 2003, 00:22

The number to topple Hussein through military means is 66%, with 46% strongly supporting. You've been reading Apolyton too much.

Ramo · February 15, 2003, 00:40

I'll be at the protest tomorrow.

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 00:45

My mom doesn't even support this war, and she's about as fundamentalist conservative pro-Bush as they come.

Kyle · February 15, 2003, 01:07

Ah, the voices of irrelevance will be heard. As well as the voices of hypocrisy. I'd bet money that there won't be an anti-Saddam posters (as he's the one who would be causing war) at any of these protest.

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 01:12

How is Saddam causing the war, when clearly the US is the one building up to invade? That's nonsensical. That's like saying the Poles caused WW2 by not surrendering to Hitler.

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
The number to topple Hussein through military means is 66%, with 46% strongly supporting. You've been reading Apolyton too much.

No, I've seen the polls. I've never seen the numbers that you give. I would like to know what polls these are.

DanS · February 15, 2003, 01:21

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...data021103.htm

See questions 7 and 9.

Agathon · February 15, 2003, 01:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
The sad thing is, my actions will have as much impact on the world as all of the loons dancing nude in the streets with "Save Saddam" t-shirts tied around their waists.

Don't be so defeatist. Politicians don't completely ignore these things. If enough people make it clear they are opposed, there will be mild compromises made, which is better than nothing. No reasonable person expects that the revolution will start tomorrow, but I know what would definitely happen if everyone stayed indoors.

Witness Chretien's commitment of more troops to Afghanistan. It virtually means that Canada will not send troops to an Iraq war (or so I have heard). The obvious reason for his doing so is that most Canadians don't like the idea of a war against Iraq.

Asher · February 15, 2003, 01:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Don't be so defeatist. Politicians don't completely ignore these things.

Bush doesn't care one way or another what you or anyone else thinks...

Quote:

Witness Chretien's commitment of more troops to Afghanistan. It virtually means that Canada will not send troops to an Iraq war (or so I have heard). The obvious reason for his doing so is that most Canadians don't like the idea of a war against Iraq.

Chretien is playing Canadians for fools. He's delaying, but he will send. Every day they hint more at it.

Kyle · February 15, 2003, 02:20

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
How is Saddam causing the war, when clearly the US is the one building up to invade? That's nonsensical. That's like saying the Poles caused WW2 by not surrendering to Hitler.

Ignoring ones feelings toward the UN and whether they have a right to demand disarmament, Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions. His refusal to disarm is causing this.

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 02:24

Quote:

Iraq is in violation of UN resolutions.

So if the UN demanded the US disarm, and the US ignored them, then if the UN attacked us the US would be at fault?

notyoueither · February 15, 2003, 02:30

Good fantasy David. How exactly would the Sec Council ever pass that US disarm resolution considering the US has a veto? Not to mention the UN rarely, if ever, demands any state disarms.

But, that's OK. Keep on keeping on in your twisted views of whatever the world should do so as not to inconvenience you yourself personally.

notyoueither · February 15, 2003, 02:33

btw, I'll go to work tomorrow. I'll spare a thought for the twots demonstrating in a foot of snow in DC. Then I'll most likely fart.

LoneWolf · February 15, 2003, 02:34

So do you all think that we all should be continuing to supply aid to all of these countries opposing us? Because we are, by far, the largest grantor of foriegn aid, I'm sure you know.