34% - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-28-2006, 01:22 PM   #136
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and ... the possibility for discussion fails. we can all cut-and-paste, too, STING, but a discussion it does not promote. there's no way into your post since it has nothing to do with anything but hearing yourself talk and spouting numbers and the poor conclusions you draw from them, lacking any sort of nuance or grasping of the complexity of the situation
There is nothing wrong with anything I posted above. Its my opinion. No, not copied or pasted from another post or something else, but my immediate thoughts in response to what you had written.

If you have such a problem that you feel the need to specifically and personally comment about another member of the forum, please contact a moderator instead or simply move on. But spare the rest of the members of this forum such things because its inconsistent with forum rules, and is indeed something that does not contribute to the discussion.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2006, 02:13 PM   #137
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


There is nothing wrong with anything I posted above. Its my opinion. No, not copied or pasted from another post or something else, but my immediate thoughts in response to what you had written.

If you have such a problem that you feel the need to specifically and personally comment about another member of the forum, please contact a moderator instead or simply move on. But spare the rest of the members of this forum such things because its inconsistent with forum rules, and is indeed something that does not contribute to the discussion.


STING, it's the same stuff, over and over and over again, and anyone who follows your posts knows that you use the same set of numbers and draw the same set of conclusions. you also don't engage the argument presented -- that's my issue with you, and i'd rather say something than ignore it because i do hope that a more productive conversation can result. the biggest challenge i have is not debating with you, but finding a way even into the post so that a discussion can follow. in addition, there are no personal attacks, i've only attacked the arguments presented not the person making the arguments.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-28-2006, 02:22 PM   #138
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Here's a way for his poll number to go even more.


Test blast in Nevada: A nuclear rehearsal
Pentagon apparently looks for an optimal size of a 'bunker buster'
By Robert Gehrke
The Salt Lake Tribune



Correction: Stories on April 6, 7 and 13 about the Divine Strake test at Nevada Test Site incorrectly reported that the explosion planned for June 2 will be five times larger than the largest conventional weapon in the U.S. arsenal. The explosion actually will be nearly 50 times bigger.

WASHINGTON - A powerful blast scheduled at the Nevada Test Site in June is designed to help war planners figure out the smallest nuclear weapon able to destroy underground targets. And it has caused a concern that it signals a renewed push toward tactical nuclear weapons.
The detonation, called Divine Strake, is intended to "develop a planning tool to improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage," according to Defense Department budget documents.
Irene Smith, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reductionsaid the document doesn't imply that Divine Strake "is a nuclear simulation." She said it will be used to assess computer programs that predict ground shaking in a major blast.
While it will not be a nuclear explosion - no nuclear or radioactive material will be used - the Divine Strake blast will be fifty times larger than the military's largest conventional weapon, the Massive Ordinance Air Blast Bomb, or MOAB, nicknamed the Mother of All Bombs. It will still be many times less powerful than the smallest weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
"It seems like what they're doing is trying to use the explosive power to shake the interior into pieces, rather than sending an earth penetrator down to dig it up," said Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert with the Federation of American Scientists. "What it apparently does is envision the use of the nuke on the surface, and that is a very dirty business, because it sucks up the material and throws it into the atmosphere."
Divine Strake has some advocates concerned that the Bush administration is using the test to pursue development of low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons.
"We certainly have reason for concern," said Vanessa Pierce, a project director with Health Environment Alliance of Utah. "I think this test shows that the weapons designers are so obsessed with creating new nuclear weapons like mini-nukes that they'll do whatever it takes to get their fix."
"There really is a deep commitment on the part of this administration to creating new types of nuclear weapons," Pierce said.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has expressed concern about the mushroom cloud the test will produce, and asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for a classified briefing on Divine Strake. Reid is scheduled to meet with James Tegnelia of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency this afternoon.
The June 2 test will entail piling 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil atop a buried limestone tunnel on the Nevada Test Site, then detonating it to measure the damage that would be
done to the chambers.
The mixture that will be used is similar to the bomb that Timothy McVeigh used to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, only the Nevada bomb will use 280 times as much material.
Equipment inside and near the tunnel will monitor damage and ground shaking from the blast. Dust from the mushroom cloud, which could reach heights of 10,000 feet, will also be tracked.
J. Preston Truman, director of the group Downwinders, which represents individuals sickened by radioactive fallout from Cold War-era nuclear tests, scoffs at the Pentagon's suggestion that it is not a nuclear simulation, arguing no military plane could drop a 700-ton conventional bomb.
"It's for one thing and one thing only," he said. "It just says they're still pursuing these stupid, insane weapons."
The nuclear tie-in to Divine Strake test was rooted out by Kristensen and Andrew Lichterman, a nuclear weapons opponent and blogger.
"It's not a step toward nuclear testing. It is nuclear testing. It's just nuclear testing the way it's done today," since actual nuclear tests are banned by treaties, Kristensen said.
Similar above-ground detonations, some many times larger, have been conducted at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, according to planning documents for Divine Strake, but none since 1991.
The Defense Department's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review lays out a new, broader role envisioned for nuclear weapons than the part played during the Cold War.
"Non-nuclear strike capabilities may be particularly useful to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation. Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)," the report says.
In addition, the Bush administration has pushed for funding for a nuclear bunker buster, and money to enable the Nevada Test Site to be able to test a weapon within two years if an order is given.
It has also supported the repeal of a 1994 congressional ban on the development of low-yield mini-nuclear weapons.
The ban was repealed by Congress in 2003, allowing research of low-yield nuclear weapons, but requiring specific approval by Congress before engineering or other work on mini-nukes can begin.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-28-2006, 03:55 PM   #139
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:07 PM
optimal size of a 'bunker buster'

I'd hate to be using the wrong size.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-28-2006, 04:04 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




STING, it's the same stuff, over and over and over again, and anyone who follows your posts knows that you use the same set of numbers and draw the same set of conclusions. you also don't engage the argument presented -- that's my issue with you, and i'd rather say something than ignore it because i do hope that a more productive conversation can result. the biggest challenge i have is not debating with you, but finding a way even into the post so that a discussion can follow. in addition, there are no personal attacks, i've only attacked the arguments presented not the person making the arguments.
Making personal comments like the one above is not consistent with the faq/rules for the forum. There is nothing wrong with posting one's opinions on a particular topic. I examine everything that you write and post my opinion. The only thing that is unproductive is when people go from discussing the issues, to discussing members of the forum which is when things become personal. Again, talk to a moderator if you have a problem.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2006, 04:06 PM   #141
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and ... the possibility for discussion fails. we can all cut-and-paste, too, STING, but a discussion it does not promote. there's no way into your post since it has nothing to do with anything but hearing yourself talk and spouting numbers and the poor conclusions you draw from them, lacking any sort of nuance or grasping of the complexity of the situation, the fact that one thing accomplished does not negate the things that have failed, and the fact that there were many ways to go about addressing a situation far different than an all-out unilateral invasion.

two elections, while certainly accomplishments in and of themselves, do not negate the 3 massive mistakes made by this administration that extend well beyond the streets of Iraq and will haunt us in the future:

1. the overestimation the competence of this particular government in very complex areas like WMD intelligence, and the bullying and fear instilled into the CIA by Cheney and Libby (who visited the Pentagon every single week in 2002) forced errors into a deeply fallible system. when doubts were raised, they were swiftly and arrogantly dismissed. thus, the WMD debacle, something has done far, far more damage to the war's legitimacy and fate than you have yet absorbed

2. the second error was the American narcissism so beautifully expressed in your posts. it's very simple: hegemony always provokes resentment, only now said resentments are as deep among our global friends as among our enemies, making alliances as hard as they are important. a case can be made of occasional unilateral action, but that makes it all the more imperative that we get things right. and the Bush Administration got it all wrong. too few troops, nothing resembling postinvasion planning, a deaf ear to criticism even from within the military. and, finally, they totally abdicated the moral high ground by enabling the abuse and torture of military detainees.

3. a total disregard for the importance of culture that thinly masked a deadly naiveté when it comes to complex, tribal, sectarian cultures.

now, tens of thousands, if not more, innocent Iraqis are dead. thousands of Americans are dead. tens of thousands of Americans have been greviously wounded, and the final result of this war might be the rise of Iran. yes, something resembling a democracy might come about in Iraq, but we also need to ask ourselves if this is a best-case scenario? is democracy at any cost worth it? is a democratically elected theocracy that murders gays, puts women behind the veil and strips them of rights, and maintains religious bloodlust for the destruction of Israel really all that preferable to the weakened regime of Saddam Hussein? even if it were, is it worth the costs in lives and dollars that have already been incurred?

and let's talk about Iran for a moment ... if anyone hated Hussein more than a Bush brother, it is the Iranians due to their losses in the Gulf War. however, after Desert Storm 1, the Iranians were fairly certain that Iraq was too weak to attack them, so they've spent their time covertly increasing their influence in southern Iraq.

the main chance that Iran saw to destroy their enemy Hussein was getting the Americans to invade Iraq. it is too simple to say that the Iranians led the Americans to invade, but they used their excellent intelligence network in Iraq to smooth the way for the American decision to invade proving the neocons all too easy to manipulate.

the Iranians led the Bushies to believe three things:

1. that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction programs.
2. that the Iraqis would not resist U.S. operations and would greet the Americans as liberators.
3. that there would be no post-war resistance in Iraq.

Iran wanted the US to defeat Hussein and then bear the burden (an enmity) of pacifying the Sunni regions of Iraq. they knew U.S. forces would bog down in Iraq so that, in due course, the
Americans would withdraw -- but only after the Sunnis were broken -- leaving behind a Shiite government ripe for heavy influence from Tehran.

credit must be given to Iraqi Shia for moving away from the Iranians just a bit, but the jihadists have now launched an anti-Shiite rampage in order to force a civil war in Iraq and drive the Sunnis back into an alliance with Iran.

so what will happen? we will see Iraq turn into the Finland of the Middle East. during the Cold War, the
Soviets did not turn Finland into a satellite, but they did have the right to veto members of its government, to influence the military and to require a neutral foreign policy. the Iranians want more, but they will keep the worst of the Baathists out of the government and exert control over Iraq's international behavior.

so what about the US? we will be in the region permanently, imagine 40,000 troops stationed in Iraq for the next 50 years next to a nuclearized Iran with a far greater sphere of influence over the entire region.

Far more than one thing has been accomplished as I mentioned above, and the invasion was not unilateral. It was authorized by the United Nations in resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote. The occupation was then approved by the UN Security Council in resolution 1483. The United Nations would never approve of an occupation brought about through "illegal" means. Look at what the UN did when Saddam invaded Kuwait and there you have a perfect example of the UN's reaction to an illegal invasion.

But regardless of what one thinks about the UN and the legal points, the initial invasion was conducted by 3 countries not one, so to say that the invasion was unilateral is false. Several dozen countries have been involved in the occupation.


Now on to the "3 massive mistakes" of the administration.

1. WMD intelligence: back in the late 1980s and just prior to the Gulf War, most intelligence sources suggested Saddam was over a decade away from developing nuclear weapons. Right after the Gulf War UN inspectors went in and found this not to be the case. They found that Saddam was within one year of getting a nuclear weapon. This would be the first of many discoveries. There would be more assessments about Saddam's capabilities and the UN inspectors success and verifying that such capabilities were being removed, only then to find out that the assessments were wrong.

UN security Council resolutions called for Saddam to Verifiably disarm of all WMD, because it was necessary for the security of the region and the world given Saddam's past actions. When UN inspectors were forced to withdraw from Iraq in 1998, just prior to massive bombing by the coalition, they listed all kinds of items for which Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of. 4 years and no inspections in Iraq and Saddam's failure to resolve any of the problems from 1998 with the new inspections meant that invasion and removal was the only way to bring about compliance with the resolutsion which was necessary for the security of the region and the world.

The fact that WMD was not found under building x, or that Saddam's unaccounted for stocks of WMD were not found is irrelevant to the need for the invasion. To qoute Collin Powell on the issue in 2002, "It is not incumbent upon the United States to prove that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction, it is incumbent upon Iraq to prove that they do not". Those were the terms that Saddam signed on to with the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

Intelligence on WMD, knowing specifically where a country hides such things, is probably the most difficult form of intelligence to get. That is why security "in the absense of Saddam's removal" was dependent upon Saddam's verifiable disarmament and not whether country a's intelligence on whether WMD c was located under building h. There has never been accurate intelligence on the location and type of such WMD which can easily be hidden. Detection of Nuclear WMD potential is easier, but with Iran, we already have to admit that a bombing raid may not destroy what we intend it to, because the intelligence can determine if we actually know where all the nuclear facilities are, or if in fact the ones we assume are nuclear facilities are in fact decoys.

Every intelligence organization around the world believed that Saddam had WMD in March 2003. But regardless of what they believed, the necessity for invasion was because Saddam was not going to verifiably disarm of the WMD, whether he had destroyed it in private years ago, or still had large intact cache of such materials. There were of course many other supporting factors for the need for invasion including the fact that containment had fallen apart with the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo as well as Saddam's black market smuggling which went into the Billions annually.

The system of intelligence has never been perfect and in fact often wrong when it came to estimating another countries WMD. It is not a failure in the sense that many people describe in regards to the Iraq war. It is very important to improve the intelligence capability, but to many people have this star wars fantasy expectations about what the United States should be able to know about another countries WMD program. To others, the failure to find WMD is a politically convenient tool to attack the policy in Iraq, but an understand of the WMD situation in Iraq that goes beyond the past 4 years is important to understanding the reasons and need for the use of military force against Saddam in 2003. The timeline of events starts 15 years ago, not 4 years ago.



2. The conflict in Iraq has nothing to do with United States Hegemony. The security situation in the persian gulf impacts every country on the planet. It is vital to the global economy that the entire planet depends on. Because Germany and France were not involved in the Iraqi invasion does not make the invasion a unilateral action. No alliances have been broken up because of the invasion. All these countries still fully cooperate on matters of terrorism as well as operations in Afghanistan. Harsh words on a particular issue as well as the non-involvement of a few countries does not constitute the end or the ruin of the several alliances this country is apart of.

The initial invasion of Iraq had plenty of troops as the results show. The Iraqi military was defeated in 3 weeks of combat. The post invasion plans have brought us to an Iraq that has had democratic elections and is on the verge of forming a permanent government. The torture issue was an isolated incident and could likely happen again regardless of what rules are in place. The only real serious mistake comes from what to do with the Iraqi military at the end of the war as well as attending to the concerns of Sunni's in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's removal. Disbanding the Iraqi military and debathication were indeed mistakes.


3. The tribal situation in Iraq which is actually more important that the religious distinctions in some ways, was definitely understood by the military prior to the invasion. Key guides helped defuse potentially explosive situations as the invasion proceded with specific groups.


Since the invasion it is true that there are thousands of Iraqi's who have been killed primarily by insurgents and terrorist. But the losses are a fraction of the number of people who were killed while Saddam was in power. There are 2,397 US troops who have been killed in the conflict as well as a few hundred coalition soldiers. But the number of seriously wounded troops is NOT in the tens of thousands! This is grossly inaccurate! A total of 17,762 US troops have been wounded. Of those, 9,625 were returned to full combat duty in less than 72 hours! The other 8,137 are the ones that have required various levels of medical care and did not return to combat in under 72 hours. For some its a few days longer or a few weeks months. For others, the injury's are far more serious. But the numbers are NOT in the tens of thousands.


It was necessary to remove Saddam regardless of what one thinks of the current post war situation. The first thing to consider is the safety and security of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Gulf States. The energy produced from this region is vital to the survival of the global economy currently. The threats one must think of first are foreign forces with potential capabilities like Saddam had to sieze and sabotage Persian Gulf energy supply in these countries. There are no Iraqi forces in Iraq that currently have that capability. The new Iraqi military is being built for a force structure that emphisizes defense and internal security, not ones that emphisizes large scale and deep offensive maneuvers and other things found in Soviet military doctrine like Saddam's military practiced.

More important than the military capabilities is the political development of the country into a democracy. It has been historically found that Democracies are less likely to go to war with their neighbors than non-democratic countries. Saddam's invasion and unprovoked attacks on four independent countries over a few years was unique and dangerous. The replacement of Saddam was necessary, even if it meant replacing it with a non-democratic regime. But the chances of stability over the long-run in terms of interstate war, would be better with a democracy than a dictatorship.

As far as Israel goes, no other country supports the removal of Saddam than Israel does. They understand the region better than anyone in the world, especially from a security prespective. The last country to directly attack Israel was Saddam's Iraq. Considering what Saddam did in the past, his ambitions, and capabilities, Saddam was a huge threat who's removal has benefited Israely security.

In regards to whether its worth the cost, try considering the cost of not removing Saddam! Take a look at what Saddam had done over the past 24 years, and what he could likely do in the future. Those cost dwarf anything we have seen over the past 3 years. In addition, what Saddam could potentially do to the global economy could result in the worst global economic depression the planet has ever seen with a range of incaculable consequences. The United States even with Iraq and Afganistan, currently spends less on defense than it did in the 1980s peacetime as a percentage of GDP. The killed and wounded numbers are obviously a lot higher than anything the United States has been involved in since Vietnam, but they are also a tiny fraction of most of the war's that the United States has fought in, in its history. Think of the cost of fighting Saddam 10 years from now as opposed to 3 years ago. The transfer of technology and new weapons under Saddam's control could have potentially made and invasion and occupation far more dangerous than it has been.


In 1991 after Saddam's defeat in the first Gulf War, Iran was still suffering from its defeat in its war with Saddam. Saddam still had nearly 3,000 tanks, the Iranians only had 700. A far worse ratio of combat strength than existed in 1980 when Saddam invaded. Iran spent much of the 1990s trying to rearm itself so it could defend itself from Saddam. Several hundred new Russian made tanks were purchased as well as other Russian military supplies. Iran during the Iran/Iraq war relied on its military equipment from the days of the Shah which included a lot of American and British equipment. By 1991, much of this equipment that survived the war was inoperable because of a lack of spare parts and an inability to get them from the United States or United Kingdom.

Iran had always operated special units in Iraq to try and undermine Saddam. This was nothing new. Iran indeed was happy with Saddam's removal and obviously wants to take advantage of the political situation in Iraq. But Iran does not control every Shia Tribe that is in Iraq. Some of them bitterly hate Iran for what it did in the war to Southern Iraq. It is indeed a complex situation.

Iran had no involvement in the invasion of Iraq by the coalition, although they have tried to influence the political situation there. Every major intelligence agency on the planet believed that Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion, and the fact that none have been found is not proof that there weren't any.

Most of Iraq has not resisted the coalition occupation. Resistence is mainly found in 4 of the 18 provinces of the country. Regardless of what you think about the religious Shia party, it does not have a majority of the seats in the parliment and must negotiate with the other political parties in order to form a government. The Iraqi Shia are Arabs and they have not spent their history in the hopes that one day Persians would invade the country and rule them or control them through other means. The majority of the Iraqi's who fought and died against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war were Shia. That does not mean that Iran does not have any influence in southern Iraq, but it does mean that many of the situations that people describe are exxagerated.

I would take an Finland like Iraq any day over Saddam's Iraq. Iranian influence does not equal a democratic Iraq suddenly launching and invasion of their gulf neighbors like Saddam did. Influence also does not equal control.

The United States will likely be in the region, either on land or close by on ships, because of the vital importance of the regions energy to the global economy. Until that changes, you can expect a US presense indefintely somewhere in the region, but not necessarily Iraq. Kuwait would probably be more likely.

Iran's conservative leaders now face growing democracies on two borders with Iraq and Afghanistan. Successful democracies in both countries will eventually destabilize the strength of Iran's theocracy. Iran already has an opposition movement and the government is not controled by one dictator. The grip that the Iranian regime has on the people is not nearly as great as Saddam's grip on Iraq was. Successful democracies in both Iraq and Afghanistan could very well mean that Iran's theocracy's days are numbered. Such an outcome was not a reason for Invading Iraq, but it may in fact happen.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2006, 04:07 PM   #142
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Making personal comments like the one above is not consistent with the faq/rules for the forum. There is nothing wrong with posting one's opinions on a particular topic. I examine everything that you write and post my opinion. The only thing that is unproductive is when people go from discussing the issues, to discussing members of the forum which is when things become personal. Again, talk to a moderator if you have a problem.


since no moderator has contacted me, and since i received two very positive comments on the post that seems to bother you so much, i believe it is up to you to contact a mod if you are so upset by my comments. again, i'm not commenting on you, or offering up any personal attacks. if you continue to feel as if you are being personally, you might as well make that case to a mod or feel free to PM me personally.

it's this kind of complaining that i think people don't want to read in threads.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-28-2006, 04:24 PM   #143
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




since no moderator has contacted me, and since i received two very positive comments on the post that seems to bother you so much, i believe it is up to you to contact a mod if you are so upset by my comments. again, i'm not commenting on you, or offering up any personal attacks. if you continue to feel as if you are being personally, you might as well make that case to a mod or feel free to PM me personally.

it's this kind of complaining that i think people don't want to read in threads.
People want to discuss the issues, not personal comments about the posting habbits of another member. If you want to discuss problems you have with someone elses posting habits, talk to a mod.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-28-2006, 05:20 PM   #144
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


People want to discuss the issues, not personal comments about the posting habbits of another member. If you want to discuss problems you have with someone elses posting habits, talk to a mod.


pot? kettle?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 05:30 PM   #145
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
So I guess this Monday, we will all be reading about the combined 200,000 people who marched in New York City and Washington DC this weekend. Oh, and the figure had better be from the police or other city officials, not some inaccurate pumped up figure from a protest organizer.


[q]
Tens of Thousands in New York March Against Iraq War

Thousands of people marched through Lower Manhattan yesterday to demand America's withdrawal from Iraq, the latest in a series of antiwar protests held in New York City and around the country during the past several months.

The march came a day after the State Department reported that insurgent attacks on civilians in Iraq surged last year, accounting for nearly half of the people killed in terrorism attacks across the world. It also came near the end of the deadliest month for American forces in Iraq since last November.

"I don't think the message has really changed, but the magnitude of the participation has grown," said Donald Morrill, 50, a college professor who journeyed from Florida to take part in the demonstration.

Several local politicians participated, notably the Rev. Al Sharpton, and some national figures, too, including Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq and who has become a symbol of the antiwar movement.

Yesterday's protest drew added urgency from the administration's recent saber rattling over Iran, and signs opposing possible United States military action there were almost as common as those urging a withdrawal from Iraq. But as at previous Iraq-related protests, yesterday's demonstration encompassed an array of causes, from immigrants' rights to low-cost housing.

Mark Hallinan, 47, a priest at St. Ignatius Loyola Church on the Upper East Side, led a group of about a dozen people from his parish under the auspices of Pax Christi, a lay Catholic peace organization.

"We've seen the impact in so many ways," Father Hallinan said. "It's taking away money for education, for balancing the budget."

For others marching, the mere fact that the United States remained in Iraq was reason enough to protest, said Laurie Goodstein, a physician from Manhattan. Dr. Goodstein said she was meeting her parents — both in their 80's — at the march's end. "They've been going to protests all their lives," she joked, "but now they're too old to walk all the way."

Yesterday's demonstration began on Broadway, north of Union Square, where thousands of protesters of all ages gathered between 17th and 23rd Streets. About half past noon, they lurched into motion, heading south toward Foley Square near City Hall.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/ny...30protest.html

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 06:33 PM   #146
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:07 PM
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 10:22 PM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




[q]
Tens of Thousands in New York March Against Iraq War

Thousands of people marched through Lower Manhattan yesterday to demand America's withdrawal from Iraq, the latest in a series of antiwar protests held in New York City and around the country during the past several months.

The march came a day after the State Department reported that insurgent attacks on civilians in Iraq surged last year, accounting for nearly half of the people killed in terrorism attacks across the world. It also came near the end of the deadliest month for American forces in Iraq since last November.

"I don't think the message has really changed, but the magnitude of the participation has grown," said Donald Morrill, 50, a college professor who journeyed from Florida to take part in the demonstration.

Several local politicians participated, notably the Rev. Al Sharpton, and some national figures, too, including Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq and who has become a symbol of the antiwar movement.

Yesterday's protest drew added urgency from the administration's recent saber rattling over Iran, and signs opposing possible United States military action there were almost as common as those urging a withdrawal from Iraq. But as at previous Iraq-related protests, yesterday's demonstration encompassed an array of causes, from immigrants' rights to low-cost housing.

Mark Hallinan, 47, a priest at St. Ignatius Loyola Church on the Upper East Side, led a group of about a dozen people from his parish under the auspices of Pax Christi, a lay Catholic peace organization.

"We've seen the impact in so many ways," Father Hallinan said. "It's taking away money for education, for balancing the budget."

For others marching, the mere fact that the United States remained in Iraq was reason enough to protest, said Laurie Goodstein, a physician from Manhattan. Dr. Goodstein said she was meeting her parents — both in their 80's — at the march's end. "They've been going to protests all their lives," she joked, "but now they're too old to walk all the way."

Yesterday's demonstration began on Broadway, north of Union Square, where thousands of protesters of all ages gathered between 17th and 23rd Streets. About half past noon, they lurched into motion, heading south toward Foley Square near City Hall.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/ny...30protest.html

[/q]
So the New York City march was well below 100,000 , how did the Washington DC march do?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 05:26 AM   #148
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
It's Bush standing on things!...oh Colbert
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 09:04 AM   #149
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


So the New York City march was well below 100,000 , how did the Washington DC march do?


well below?

organizers said 300,000 -- pick whichever number you feel works best for you, since that's what you'll do anyway.

the DC march was on Darfur -- the anti-war march was focused in NYC.

i do not have numbers on the Darfur demonstrations.

all this, combined with the immigration marches, and it was one rough weekend to be a Republican.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 09:06 AM   #150
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:07 AM
Are illegals getting the vote now?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com