MERGED --> To protest or not to protest + War protest.

[hiphop]

I am with meegannie on this one.

The argument that there are other problems in this world, and why the protestors don?t protest everyday against them, is strange because it is coming from people who partly do not seem to agree with the anti-war protests. If you are against the hunger in this world, why don?t you organize a protest then, which calls for more development aid instead of military budget, for example? And right, I could organize one too.

I think meegannie has a very good point in saying there is an anti-war=pro-saddam picture. At least, this is the impression I get when someone says "They are they not protesting against 1.2 millions of deaths in the last 12 years". Sure, we all know Saddams policies are cruel.

*Someone* has spoken about globalization protestors in Levis and with MS programs? Fine, I wear Levis and use MS programs (no fast food though) and have protested against "globalization". Where is the problem with that?

Those protests have brought the problems that developing countries face because of "globalization", or lets say, some economic measures connected with globalization to public awareness; we are talking about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, about unfair terms of trade, about the World Banks HIPC programs that force the developing countries not only to open their markets for free trade, but lots of other issues too that weaken their chances for sustainable development - without going too much into detail here.

Take into consideration that, if no one would have protested against globalization, or if there were not so many people and dramatic events connected with the protests, those issues wouldn?t have been made public. Nowadays everyone is talking about globalization. Without protests? No one except of some economists.

Apart from that, its as if you would give the right to protest only to the protestor who is well-informed, politically correct, doesn?t provoke et al. Sure, thats the ideal type of protestor, and many are, but on the other hand, many are not, but have the same right to protest like me or you.

Anyhow, the people that are on the street now, in America, again send an important message to the world: that some Americans are against this war - for many reasons, including the one that this war breaches international agreements.

Don?t come to tell me whatnot Saddams actions are. I know all that, I agree, and it would only bore me. Just note that this war is illegal in terms of the United Nations Charta - however justified or not it may be, it is not according to the principles of the Charta.

Like meegannie has stated, there are protests against every kind of cruelty going on, for years and years.

I just don?t know where the problem is.

 

[womanfish]

I like to see protests out there, believe me that is a freedom that should be very dear to all Americans, and I have been part of protests and will probably be again in the future. (yes one of them was a demonstration on Aid to Africa).

Just bothers me that peace protests are beginning to involve fighting, assaulting police, vandalism, etc...

In fact it doesn't matter that it's a peace demonstration or not, it would bother me in any situation, but just has a slightly more ironic twist in this case.

And no I don't expect every protestor to spend their whole life protesting what Saddam is doing, but I hope that they do know that the removal of Saddam will most likely mean the end of 5,000 Iraqi dead each week. And that statistic is not to bore anyone, as I hope no one would be bored with that fact.

Either way, I'm glad there's another voice out there other than Bill O'Rielly and Shawn Hannity, it makes things interesting.

 

[hiphop]

Sure, I am against fighting, assaulting police, vandalism too. In some cases, the police provokes the protestors, in some cases, the protestors are just idiots looking for action.

And your statistic doesn?t bore me, but still I think there would have been other ways to remove Saddam.

 

[womanfish]

Sure, I am against fighting, assaulting police, vandalism too. In some cases, the police provokes the protestors, in some cases, the protestors are just idiots looking for action.

And your statistic doesn?t bore me, but still I think there would have been other ways to remove Saddam.

Do you think a united stand by the U.N. or I guess I should say the Security Council may have been enough pressure for him to leave or somehow be removed more peacefully? I sometimes think it would, but I'm not sure what else would work.

 

[hiphop]

I think a revolution by the Iraqis would have been a more peaceful way to remove him.

And I think a special operation by Secret Services, including CIA and Mossad, without big time war, could have been successful.

If it is only about the removal of Saddam, why didn?t they try that one out. It is strange to think you can kill a leader like Saddam with bombing around.

So, I think there were other options. Why not let them disarm with ctrl of IAEA - as long as this may take - and slowly working on a revolution there, influencing the people so they rise against their cruel dictator? I am not a fan of revolutions or civil wars, but its better than breaching the UN Charta.

The obvious reason lies within the profits by firing weapons off (they have to be restocked and developed furthermore), the control over energy resources, the political control over the region, the profits by re-building what was destroyed before, and the political control by justification of unilateral actions and weakening UN bodies.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I think a revolution by the Iraqis would have been a more peaceful way to remove him.

And I think a special operation by Secret Services, including CIA and Mossad, without big time war, could have been successful.

If it is only about the removal of Saddam, why didn?t they try that one out. It is strange to think you can kill a leader like Saddam with bombing around.

So, I think there were other options. Why not let them disarm with ctrl of IAEA - as long as this may take - and slowly working on a revolution there, influencing the people so they rise against their cruel dictator? I am not a fan of revolutions or civil wars, but its better than breaching the UN Charta.

The obvious reason lies within the profits by firing weapons off (they have to be restocked and developed furthermore), the control over energy resources, the political control over the region, the profits by re-building what was destroyed before, and the political control by justification of unilateral actions and weakening UN bodies.

I agree.

Lemonite-gee, real nice post there...

Anywho, as for the protests-here's what I think:

Those of us who protest-we all know Saddam's a jerk. Nobody's denying that. Do we want him out of power? Hell, yeah.

We just don't see how killing more innocent people in our quest to stop him from killing people is gonna solve the problem.

Some people also protest because they don't like the way our country may handle things, 'cause let's face it, this government has done some pretty crummy things when we've been dealing with other countries.

They also may have their own ideas of how to solve whatever problem it is that is occuring, peaceful ideas.

Like hiphop said, people have been protesting against what Saddam has done for years. And there have been protests against various other kinds of injustices around the world for years, too.

You have to remember, people, that protests can be done many different ways. You can go out on the streets and hold up signs and all that.

Or you can write letters to your government telling them that you do not agree with the way they're handling something, and give your own opinions on what you'd like to see done.

Or you can sign petitions.

And so on and so forth.

Some of you said that these protests are futile and won't change Bush's mind. Will a small group of people protesting change our government's mind?

No, probably not.

But believe me, if, during a protest, there manages to be a big group of people together, perhaps even having it so that eventually people throughout the country will be protesting, then the government will start to listen, or at least just take notice that people are not happy.

I'm glad nbcrusader mentioned that being anti-war does not mean you are pro-Saddam-I really, really wish that a lot of people would stop making that connection, because that is so false.

Now, all this being said, I do agree that it's not fair to block roads during a protest (that can be dangerous), and if you start using violence during your anti-war protest, that's wrong, because that's totally contradicting what you are protesting.

Angela

 

[Scarletwine]

I'm watching CSPAN right now, they have Lebanese news on from today (pre-shock & awe).
I saw the first real pictures of the demonstrations that went on yesterday. They showed pictures of the demos all over the US. It's pretty bad that our main media couldn't have showed them.
The corporate media movement is my next protest.
I can't beLIEve anyone watches FOX.

 

[meegannie]

I think a revolution by the Iraqis would have been a more peaceful way to remove him.

And I think a special operation by Secret Services, including CIA and Mossad, without big time war, could have been successful.

If it is only about the removal of Saddam, why didn?t they try that one out. It is strange to think you can kill a leader like Saddam with bombing around.

I agree. I'm glad to see Saddam being removed from power, but I don't like the way it's being done and I have some serious concerns about what will happen to the Iraqi people after the war.

Oh, and I just have to say petitions = ....unless it's on a small-scale like a school or something.