posted on February 14, 2003 05:27:45 PM new
Australia had only an estimated 100,000 show up in good weather out of a population of 19 million with a large majority of the country's population under age 54. But get this- all the schools in Sydney let the school children out to join the march. So I guess that means the estimate is about 70,000.
That leaves 9.9 million for the US and Europe to produce. It just might reach that number if the French and Germans pay people to attend.
posted on February 14, 2003 06:28:52 PM new
"Victoria Police estimates placed the crowd numbers at up to 150,000..."
"Earlier in the day, the square was the meeting point for several hundred secondary school students who were urged to take the afternoon off from school in a separate peace action organised by Youth Against the War."
"The first in a series of planned peace protests across Australia[b] this weekend, which will [b]culminate in rallies on Sunday in Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide, the Melbourne demonstration was awesome in its scale."
Though 53 percent of Americans said they approved of the way Mr. Bush is handling Iraq, only 47 percent approved of his foreign policy management over all.
posted on February 14, 2003 08:19:18 PM new
Not only do some people think 100,000 is "phenomenal" but one Australian wag stated --"This is a huge statement by the people of Melbourne, and the people of Australia to John Howard: that he's gone the wrong way and should turn around."
Yeah right. 100,000 out of 19 million is a mandate. That's like saying when 100,000 attend an outdoor rock concert, they should dictate the course of a country.
There are more people that attend Big Ten college football games.
posted on February 14, 2003 08:26:21 PM new
For each person who stands up and says "NO!", a hundred more remain silent who feel the same way. 100,000 time 100 equals 10,000,000. A number not healthy for leaders to ignore.
posted on February 14, 2003 08:27:15 PM new
John Howard is being called Bush's second poodle and I doubt that he will be turned around....unfortunately.
posted on February 14, 2003 09:54:10 PM new
Well for every person that vocally supports the war there are 1,000,000 that support the war but remain silent. Therefore, there are billions that support the war.
posted on February 15, 2003 11:53:17 AM new
10 million person "peace" protest my a**. NYC barely had 100,000.
Couldn't even scare up 1 million people world wide. And of the people that did show up, there were 20 different agendas, everything from the environmentalists to the Workers Party of the World. The press is wise to the lies and BS of these bogus "peace" movements. They learned their lesson on the 1960s and are reporting accurately just exactly who these groups are and what their real goals are.
Let's face the reality. The vast majority of the WORLD believes the US and its allies are prosecuting a just war.
posted on February 15, 2003 12:19:17 PM new
How many Raiders fans turned out to burn and pillage Oakland after the team's comical Super Bowl performance?
How many stayed home but wanted to participate?
posted on February 15, 2003 12:23:01 PM new
Millions Join Anti-Iraq War Protests Worldwide
2 hours, 19 minutes ago
LONDON (Reuters) - More than four million protesters joined forces around the globe on Saturday to deliver a blunt message to President Bush (news - web sites) -- "Give peace a chance and do not rush into war against Iraq."
In hundreds of towns and cities across the world, from Bangkok to Brussels, from Canberra to Calcutta, they took to the streets to pillory Bush as a bloodthirsty warmonger.
In the biggest demonstration of 'people power' since the Vietnam War, they poured scorn on Bush's hawkish stance.
"This war is solely about oil. George Bush has never given a damn about human rights," London mayor Ken Livingstone told reporters at a giant rally in London.
Close to one million people marched through London in the biggest peace demonstration in British political history.
"Give peace a chance, give peace a chance," American peace activist Jesse Jackson chanted to the cheering throng.
Hollywood star Tim Robbins, reflecting on the global reach of the protests, said: "The peace movement is acting as one."
Rome boasted another giant turnout. Under a sea of rainbow peace banners, one million people marched through the streets. Graying pensioners and dreadlocked teenagers marched side-by-side in a carnival-like atmosphere.
In France, one of the staunchest opponents of war, one woman protester said: "The Americans were stressed by September 11 and now they are going completely overboard."
The French interior ministry estimated that at least 300,000 people turned out to protest across the country.
France's opposition for now to war against Iraq to rid it of alleged weapons of mass destruction is supported in Europe by Berlin, where some 500,000 people attended a rally in the biggest protest in Germany since the end of World War II.
They waved banners reading "No Blood for Oil," "Make Love Not War," and "War? No Thanks!"
The day began with a slew of demonstrations in Asia. In Japan, the only nation to have been attacked with nuclear weapons at the end of World War II, around 300 gathered in front of the U.S. embassy in Tokyo chanting anti-war slogans.
"What the United States is doing now is wrong. We are on the brink of World War Three," said Japanese housewife Mariko Ayama.
Australians turned out in their thousands for the biggest protest since the anti-Vietnam War marches of 30 years ago.
ACROSS TIME ZONES
"The whole world is against this war. Only one person wants it," said Muslim teenager Bilqees Gamieldien in Cape Town.
Protesters were cheered on Friday when U.N chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council that he held out hope arms inspections in Iraq would work.
In the Arab world, tens of thousands of Syrians and Palestinian residents of Damascus took to the streets to voice their opposition to a U.S. war against fellow Arab Iraqis.
About 10,000 people waving Iraqi, French and German flags and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) pictures marched peacefully but noisily through the Lebanese capital of Beirut.
In Turkey, demonstrators pleaded: "No to more blood and chaos in our region" and "No more American imperialism."
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz held his own one-man protest in the Italian city of Assisi, praying silently before the tomb of St. Francis, the patron of peace.
"The people of Iraq want peace and millions of people around the world are demonstrating for peace, so let us all work for peace and resist the war," he said in front of one of the world's most famous religious shrines.
The same wave of anti-Americanism swept over Europe, already deeply divided over the need to attack Iraq.
"The biggest threat to peace is the United States, not Iraq," said one pensioner in Finland.
"The war...would only make the Iraq people weaker and would keep Saddam Hussein in power," said Belgian social worker Roselyne Laforge.
One Russian protester's banner showed a photograph of Bush with the words: "Butcher: Get out of other people's lands."
"More forest, less Bushes," read one banner in Stockholm. "Bush = cancer of the planet" read another in Barcelona.
In Croatia, several hundred masked protesters burned the American flag in front of the U.S. embassy in Zagreb.
The only major trouble flared in the Greek capital, Athens, where demonstrators burned a car and smashed several shop and bank windows in center of the city at the start of a protest march to the U.S. embassy by up to 50,000 people. (Additional reporting from Reuters bureaux in Paris, Rome, Sofia, Moscow, Berlin, Johannesburg, London, Cape Town, Zagreb, Sydney, Wellington, Tokyo, Islamabad, Stockholm, Helsinski, Barcelona and Damascus)
[ edited by neonmania on Feb 15, 2003 12:24 PM ]
posted on February 15, 2003 12:24:48 PM new
Or- How many will go out and burn and destroy after a sports victory just because they can and could care less about any sports event.
posted on February 15, 2003 12:26:18 PM new
BS- there wasn't even 1 million world wide.
4 major cities barely add up to 400,000.
Perhaps if we throw in the middle east countries we can reach 1 million or more. I heard there were a lot of people in the protesting in Iraq- but the alternative was being shot, same in Lebanon and other muslim countries.
[ edited by REAMOND on Feb 15, 2003 12:39 PM ]
posted on February 15, 2003 12:38:18 PM new
REAMOND, when we first started protesting months ago we hardly got a mention on the back page. The numbers were small, but the police and media made them even less.
For one thing everyone was still hurting so much from 9/11, and never thought the administration would do any thing to put us in more danger. Oh, yes, we were looked upon as unamerican for speaking out. Now the whole world understands what we were saying. Now the protests are on every channel and in every newspaper. You can't really ignore hundreds of sites worldwide.
I don't think you understand one of the ways to organize is to have specific groups gather at different sites. As you march these groups join in to rally at the target. Some of the contingents here are-labor, interfaith, women's, artists and people of color, environmentalist, student and youth, gay and lesbian, baby brigade (families).
The poll found that while the economy still commands the greatest concern among Americans, the prospect of combat in Iraq, fear of terrorism and the North Korean nuclear standoff are stirring additional anxieties.
These worries may be taking a toll on Mr. Bush's support. His overall job approval rating is down to 54 percent from 64 percent just a month ago, the lowest level since the summer before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Three-quarters of Americans see war as inevitable, and two-thirds approve of war as an option. But many people continue to be deeply ambivalent about war if faced with the prospect of high casualties or a lengthy occupation of Iraq that further damages the American economy. Twenty-nine percent of respondents in the poll, which was conducted Monday through Wednesday, disapprove of taking military action against Iraq.
With major decisions of war and peace still pending, 59 percent of Americans said they believed the president should give the United Nations more time. Sixty-three percent said Washington should not act without the support of its allies, and 56 percent said Mr. Bush should wait for United Nations approval.
As concurrent crises converge on the White House, including a rancorous conflict within the NATO alliance over Iraq war planning, President Bush's job approval ratings have lost ground across the board. Fifty-three percent of Americans disapproved of the way he is handling the economy, and 44 percent disapproved of his overall management of foreign policy.
Though 53 percent of Americans said they approved of the way Mr. Bush is handling Iraq, only 47 percent approved of his foreign policy management over all.
Moreover, a year and a half after the Sept. 11 terrorist assault, only a third of Americans said they think the United States and its allies are winning the antiterror campaign, while 38 percent think that neither side is winning and 20 percent regard the terrorists as still having the upper hand. Only 49 percent of Americans think Mr. Bush has a coherent plan for dealing with terrorism.
posted on February 15, 2003 01:46:51 PM new
Desquirrel:
I didn't read anything wrong, thank you very much. As I said, according to msnbc.com the London figure was estimated at between 750,000 and 1.5 million. Here is the link:
posted on February 15, 2003 02:02:39 PM new
Interesting article from Newsday about the effect of the protests........
U.S., Britain Reworking Iraq Resolution
By DAFNA LINZER
Associated Press Writer
February 15, 2003, 3:38 PM EST
UNITED NATIONS -- Rattled by an outpouring of anti-war sentiment, the United States and Britain began reworking a draft resolution Saturday to authorize force against Saddam Hussein.
Diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the final product may be a softer text that doesn't explicitly call for war.
Before Friday's dramatic Security Council meeting, where weapons inspectors gave a relatively favorable accounting of Iraq's recent cooperation, Washington and London had been preparing a toughly worded resolution that would give them U.N. backing for military action.
British diplomats had said then that any resolution would have to include an authorization of force. They described working versions of the draft as short, simply worded texts that found Iraq in "material breach," of it's obligations and reiterated that Saddam now faces "serious consequences," as a result.
In diplomatic terms, coupling the consequences with material breach would be tantamount to an authorization.
But the measured reports by inspectors, in addition to massive global opposition to war -- expressed both in the council and in the streets -- came as a blow to their plans.
The two English-speaking allies had hoped to push through a new resolution quickly, and there had even been talk of a Saturday council meeting to introduce it. But their plans were put on hold Friday after staunch opposition, led by France, Russia and China drew rare applause inside the council chamber.
British and American diplomats conceded they would need to go home, consider the views of others and soften the tone of the draft.
"The situation is very fluid and so is the language right now," said Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram. He said a resolution giving Saddam an ultimatum to relinquish power or be removed by force was still an option. But Akram said it would be very hard for Pakistan -- a key ally for the United States despite an anti-American population at home -- to vote in favor of any resolution authorizing war.
Others council members agreed.
While Secretary of State Colin Powell said after Friday's meeting that there was no talk of compromise yet, some diplomats said privately that it was the responsibility of the five council powers -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- to negotiate a way out of the impasse over Iraq.
Unless that happens, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are unlikely to gain U.N. support for a war to disarm Iraq. While they may be prepared to act without it, U.N. backing would offer international legitimacy and a guarantee that reconstruction costs would be shared.
U.N.-backing is particularly important for the British government, which faces strong public opposition to a war. More than 500,000 people attended an anti-war protest in London on Saturday and millions more joined in similar demonstrations across the globe.
Noting the opposition, diplomats from Mexico, Chile, Angola and Bulgaria, key swing votes thought by the United States to be likely supporters, were considering abstaining in a vote as long as the five powers were unable to agree.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said in an interview Saturday with Abu Dhabi Television that a second Security Council resolution would be necessary before force was used against Saddam.
"Iraq should have no doubt that on the critical issue the Council is united: that Iraq must disarm," Annan said. "Iraq must cooperate fully and proactively with the inspectors and Iraq must honor its commitment to and obligations to the Security Council."
In Brussels, Belgium on Saturday, NATO members sought to rapidly resolve a dispute over U.S.-proposed war planning that has resulted in the alliance's worst split in years.
For the past month, Germany, France and Belgium have blocked a U.S. proposal for NATO to send early warning planes, missile defenses and anti-biochemical warfare units as a precaution to Turkey, the only NATO country bordering Iraq. The other 16 NATO allies say the delay undermines the alliances credibility while sending a signal of weakness to Saddam Hussein's regime.
A Monday meeting of the European Union will be the first opportunity to gauge readiness on the continent to negotiate. On Tuesday, the Security Council is to hold an open meeting on Iraq, designed mostly to embarrass the United States by providing a forum for non-council members to air their opposition to war.
But diplomats say that by the middle of next week, Washington and London will have a better idea about how soon they can circulate a draft.
All sides acknowledge they want to avoid forcing France, Russia or China to veto the resolution. So the draft will have to be considerably reworked or be designed to be withdrawn -- a diplomatic strategy that would demonstrate Britain and the United States want U.N. support but not at any cost.
A similar situation occurred in the run-up to NATO's bombing of Kosovo in 1999 when a resolution authorizing force was withdrawn in the face of a threatened Russian veto.
[$url]siteURLhere[$/url] Then leave out the $$ and no spaces between anything.
On the 'material breach' issue. I read something similar to antiquary's post yesterday. What is wanted is to force a UN agreement that Saddam IS in material breach. And he is. No denying that fact. That's the point Powell was trying to make at the last security council meeting. Many were calling for a longer period of time...to find things...that's wasn't the point of resolution 1441. That's why Powell kept saying everyone needed to re-read the resolution. It was to show, and it has shown, that to date, Saddam IS IN MATERIAL breach.
But be clear....while it's being reported the Bush administration might work to get this new resolution....they don't need UN approval to go to war. IMO, the only reason they might try for this is to have on record that all these nations have admitted Saddam is in breach of all the previous resolutions.
My hope is that they don't play it this way. Let's just go deal with it and get it over.
posted on February 15, 2003 02:45:57 PM new
I'll stand by my figures of less than 1 million world wide. London has one of the largest muslim populations outside the middle east. I suppose we should include them in our head count ?
Those attending these things are anarchists, communists and just run of the mill losers. Their marching in th estreets is the most productive thing they have ever done or ever will do.
Politicians know these people don't vote, or pay taxes. they will not change one thing.
If these protesters were so important and relevant, then why did Bush and the republicans swept the mid-term elections ? The same losers protesting in NYC are the same ones that were in Oregon and Canada for the World bank protests. And guess what ? They got on the news and they didn't make one wit of difference in the elections.
Republicans will sweep the next elections. They are in the process of stacking the federal judiciary, and the protesters will have wasted their time. If these losers would put as much time into voting and getting the vote out Bush wouldn't be president.
posted on February 15, 2003 02:53:57 PM new
REAMOND, do you want nuclear war, and if not why not? If you do want war why aren't you out demonstrating for it? Also, how many people who do want war are out in the streets demonstrating for it?
posted on February 15, 2003 03:01:54 PM new
I was quite a racist year ago but always had a lot of respect for Malcom X. I found these quotes on Peace:
You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.
Malcolm X (1925 - 1965), Malcolm X Speaks, 1965
Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.
Malcolm X (1925 - 1965), Malcolm X Speaks, 1965
It hits the nail on the head for me.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 15, 2003 04:22:10 PM new
"Those attending these things are anarchists, communists and just run of the mill losers"
I spent the day at one of "these things" today. I am not an anarchist, a communist or a loser. I am conventionally married,well educated, gainfully employed full time and operate a successful, more than full time agricultural business as well...maybe, in all the world I was the only one at a rally who wasn't some kind of (in your view) marginalized low-life, but I doubt it. You can stick to your view of less than a million world wide if you want, but the news reports otherwise make your assertion look pretty foolish.
posted on February 15, 2003 05:11:26 PM new
Sadly, 'tho the world protests, will Bush still attack Iraq for the Oil. Want to bet that Saddam will be allowed to leave alive with his family and cronies to a cushy retirement? No JUSTICE for the Iraq People? No Pint of Blood for rapid Warmongers? No? None at all? Don't be surprized when it happens.
