March 20, 2004 The World Still Says No To War

[ponkine]

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/

Momentum is building around the world for the Global Day of Action against War and Occupation on March 20, the one-year anniversary of the U.S. bombing and invasion of Iraq.

On that day, people on every continent will take to the streets to say YES to peace and NO to pre-emptive war and occupation. Joining with growing numbers of military families and soldiers, we will call for an end to the occupation of Iraq and Bush?s militaristic foreign policies, and highlight the linkages between the occupations of Iraq and Palestine. March 20 will be the first time the world's "other superpower," as The New York Times described us, will take center stage since February 15, when more than 15 million people across the globe expressed their opposition to Bush's looming war on Iraq.

The March 20 Global Day of Action has been endorsed by the Global Assembly of the Anti-War Movement, the World Social Forum, and the 3rd Hemispheric Forum Against the FTAA. A vast and diverse array of organizations worldwide are hard at work mobilizing for the day.

In the United States, there will be a massive protest in New York City plus dozens of local and regional demonstrations across the country, including a major protest in Fayetteville, NC, the home of Fort Bragg.

Politically, the U.S. protests will also take on the domestic impact of Bush's foreign policies?what some people call "the war at home." We will express the growing opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, which has authorized political arrests, indefinite detentions, domestic spying, and religious and racial profiling. We will call for an end to the mass detentions and deportations of innocent immigrants in the name of fighting terrorism. We will say no to massive military spending amidst vast cuts in vital domestic social and economic programs.

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/img/original/halfpage_template_English.jpg

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/img/original/halfpage_template_Spanish.jpg

 

[HelloAngel]

Hi ponkine,

You will want to post this type of information in the Free Your Mind forum - EYKIW is for U2 discussion only.

Thanks!

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes somebody send it over to FYM, also adress the real problem of the occupation, remnants and terrorists (If they attack innocent civilians on purpose they are terrorists not freedom fighters or heroic resistance to US colonialism etc.) rather than just simplify it to US is in Iraq, Iraq is unstable. If I remove a strong millitary presence from the country every ethnic group will happily engage in a productive and open democratic process to choose a government.

You may not have agreed with the war or how it was fought (I loathed the rapid inevitability of it, we should have constructed a proper casus belli on humanitarian grounds) but we should all agree that to leave such a situation unfinished would be to condemn millions to their deaths (There are much worse things than thousands killed in a war that can *if done properly* save and improve the lives of millions in the long term, just look at the deaths caused by innefective sanctions or those executed and tortured by a barbaric regime and add another 20 years or so of victims, then come back and tell me how you can let a people and country bleed slowly just to uphold the status quo of "peace").

 

[jinn77]

Please lets not try and pretend that this war was about the liberation of the Iraqi people......Black Gold was the purpose of the whole campaign.

 

[what a bomb!]

People like this really fuck me off! A march against the war? do me a favour!
Where were the marches AGAINST Bin Laden?
Where were the marches AGAINST Al Queida?
Where were the marches AGAINST Saddam's regime?

Yes there has been innocent loss of life during the 2nd gulf war, but not as many as the innocent loss of life under the regimes in Afgahistan and Iraq in the past! And don't give me that bullshit about how to make sanctions work ect, that was tried for years and didn't work! Its a sad fact of life that some of these regimes don't recognise anything else but force to remove them...love to see how a pissing march would of removed Saddam!

Since 9/11 even Bono has admitted he is no longer a atheist, he could not turn the other cheek if someone harmed his family too bloody right!

So all you liberals and bleeding hearts, why don't you march AGAINST the REAL terrorists instead of your own side for a change???

 

[wolfwill23]

People like this really fuck me off! A march against the war? do me a favour!
Where were the marches AGAINST Bin Laden?
Where were the marches AGAINST Al Queida?
Where were the marches AGAINST Saddam's regime?

Yes there has been innocent loss of life during the 2nd gulf war, but not as many as the innocent loss of life under the regimes in Afgahistan and Iraq in the past! And don't give me that bullshit about how to make sanctions work ect, that was tried for years and didn't work! Its a sad fact of life that some of these regimes don't recognise anything else but force to remove them...love to see how a pissing march would of removed Saddam!

Since 9/11 even Bono has admitted he is no longer a atheist, he could not turn the other cheek if someone harmed his family too bloody right!

So all you liberals and bleeding hearts, why don't you march AGAINST the REAL terrorists instead of your own side for a change???

Well said!

ps-What are they protesting? The war is over, isn't it? Should the US just go home now?

 

[nbcrusader]

Please lets not try and pretend that this war was about the liberation of the Iraqi people......Black Gold was the purpose of the whole campaign.

Expand on this if you will.....

 

[BVS]

People like this really fuck me off! A march against the war? do me a favour!
Where were the marches AGAINST Bin Laden?
Where were the marches AGAINST Al Queida?
Where were the marches AGAINST Saddam's regime?

Yes there has been innocent loss of life during the 2nd gulf war, but not as many as the innocent loss of life under the regimes in Afgahistan and Iraq in the past! And don't give me that bullshit about how to make sanctions work ect, that was tried for years and didn't work! Its a sad fact of life that some of these regimes don't recognise anything else but force to remove them...love to see how a pissing march would of removed Saddam!

Since 9/11 even Bono has admitted he is no longer a atheist, he could not turn the other cheek if someone harmed his family too bloody right!

So all you liberals and bleeding hearts, why don't you march AGAINST the REAL terrorists instead of your own side for a change???

First of all what do Bin Laden or Al Queida have to do with the war in Iraq? Nothing. I'm tired of people trying to lump them all up. This war had nothing to do with terrorists.

Secondly Bono was never an athiest I think the word you're looking for is pacifist, and he made clear that he didn't support this war, so don't bring him into this.

 

[nbcrusader]

First of all what do Bin Laden or Al Queida have to do with the war in Iraq? Nothing. I'm tired of people trying to lump them all up. This war had nothing to do with terrorists.

Still, the question is valid. Where are the protests against these groups?

 

[BVS]

Still, the question is valid. Where are the protests against these groups?

I think the missiles fired, the people dead and those locked up without being charged speak loud enough...

What would a protest in the US against these groups do? So now we're back to if you protest the war you support these groups?

 

[nbcrusader]

I think the missiles fired, the people dead and those locked up without being charged speak loud enough

What would a protest in the US against these groups do? So now we're back to if you protest the war you support these groups?

The implication of support is not there. People "around the world" apparently have enough of a problem with the US action in Iraq to protest openly. The question is "why the silence"?

 

[STING2]

First of all what do Bin Laden or Al Queida have to do with the war in Iraq? Nothing. I'm tired of people trying to lump them all up. This war had nothing to do with terrorists.

Secondly Bono was never an athiest I think the word you're looking for is pacifist, and he made clear that he didn't support this war, so don't bring him into this.

Saddam killed 1.7 million people, far more than Bin Ladin. Wouldn't you say that qualifies Saddam as a "terrorist"?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Since 9/11 even Bono has admitted he is no longer a atheist, he could not turn the other cheek if someone harmed his family too bloody right!

When did he ever say he was an athiest? And where did he say 9/11 stopped him from being an athiest? (I'm not disputing your claims, just wondering what your source is.)

So all you liberals and bleeding hearts, why don't you march AGAINST the REAL terrorists instead of your own side for a change???

I don't consider myself to be on the same side as murderers like Bush and Blair. Nor am I on the side of tyrants like Saddam or terrorists like al-Qaeda. Right-wingers like to paint the world as being black and white, divided in two, 'you're with us or against us,' but some of us choose a third option: rejecting violence perpetrated both by terrorists and by nation states and embracing instead the ideas of human rights, peace and dignity for all people.

 

[bammo2]

I don't consider myself to be on the same side as murderers like Bush and Blair. Nor am I on the side of tyrants like Saddam or terrorists like al-Qaeda. Right-wingers like to paint the world as being black and white, divided in two, 'you're with us or against us,' but some of us choose a third option: rejecting violence perpetrated both by terrorists and by nation states and embracing instead the ideas of human rights, peace and dignity for all people.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Still, the question is valid. Where are the protests against these groups?

If this is good enough as a counter argument, then it is valid to ask why the war only hapopened a year ago. Why not over 20, when he (Saddam) began his reign.

Lets not get all pious (if this is the point of asking rhetoric questions like this) when the silence has been all around for a long long time and is not restricted to protestors of the war.

 

[BVS]

Saddam killed 1.7 million people, far more than Bin Ladin. Wouldn't you say that qualifies Saddam as a "terrorist"?

Short answer no. When did the amount of people make a difference? Are Bin Laden and Saddam both assholes that should be stopped? Yes. But...there is a differnce. Bin Laden was a terrorist and didn't act in any form or fashion for another country, he acted on his own. Therefore he was a terrorist and should be stopped in a certain fashion. Fighting terrorist is hard because they don't act for a country so basically you are fighting a group within a country.

Saddam is an evil man. An evil man who ran a country. The only way after him was to wage war, right? But the biggest problem is we were sold a certain reason why we went after him and it turns out that that reason wasn't right. Now I know what you are going to say so save your breath. The American public wasn't sold on resolutions they were sold on "we have evidence that Saddam has WMDs". Despite your beliefs on this war numbers do not make a terrorists. The U.S. has killed a many of innocent people, we're still the only country that's used a WMD, are we terrorists?

Your logic doesn't work.

 

[verte76]

Still, the question is valid. Where are the protests against these groups?

My avatar is an anti-terrorist painting. I did it after the Istanbul bombings. That's my protest.

 

[Salome]

personaly I think stating "where were the protest against terrorists etc" is rather silly

protest against governments are held because we have chosen those to represent us and therefore have the liberty to protest when we feel that they're not doing that

what on earth would a protest against terrorists be about?

 

[verte76]

personaly I think stating "where were the protest against terrorists etc" is rather silly

protest against governments are held because we have chosen those to represent us and therefore have the liberty to protest when we feel that they're not doing that

what on earth would a protest against terrorists be about?

You're right. Some of us have protested against Bush's policies because we don't feel like he represents us. No matter who the president or the government is, in a democracy there are always going to be people who don't like what the government is doing. If there weren't, or if they didn't express themselves, democracy would be fd in those countries. That's what it's all about.

 

[Soul Always]

People like this really fuck me off! A march against the war? do me a favour!
Where were the marches AGAINST Bin Laden?
Where were the marches AGAINST Al Queida?
Where were the marches AGAINST Saddam's regime?

Yes there has been innocent loss of life during the 2nd gulf war, but not as many as the innocent loss of life under the regimes in Afgahistan and Iraq in the past! And don't give me that bullshit about how to make sanctions work ect, that was tried for years and didn't work! Its a sad fact of life that some of these regimes don't recognise anything else but force to remove them...love to see how a pissing march would of removed Saddam!

Since 9/11 even Bono has admitted he is no longer a atheist, he could not turn the other cheek if someone harmed his family too bloody right!

So all you liberals and bleeding hearts, why don't you march AGAINST the REAL terrorists instead of your own side for a change???

THAT'S EXACTLY HOW I FEEL!!!

 

[Dreadsox]

THAT'S EXACTLY HOW I FEEL!!!

Welcome to FYM!!!!


I am just shaking my head at the number of people who would DENY that Iraq was on the forefront of sponsoring terrorism.

There are documents that link the Iraqi intelligence service to Saddam that they are examining right now. They were recovered in Iraq.

But, 9/11 aside......because this is not confirmed yet.......

You cannot deny they were sponsoring terrorism in the world.

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q] "Some people still wonder what would be the relation between the liberation of Iraq and [the] war on terrorism. I think that the fact that nearly all the terrorists are gathered on our land to fight so fiercely should be more than enough explanation." He added: "We are . . . showing [other Arabs] what they can achieve once they are free . . . I see these evil powers show their true and ugly face and play their last card - surer than ever that we are winning." [/Q]

Go Ali....the Iraqi web blogger.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/17287.htm

 

[STING2]

BonoVoxSupastar,

"Short answer no. When did the amount of people make a difference? Are Bin Laden and Saddam both assholes that should be stopped? Yes. But...there is a differnce. Bin Laden was a terrorist and didn't act in any form or fashion for another country, he acted on his own. Therefore he was a terrorist and should be stopped in a certain fashion. Fighting terrorist is hard because they don't act for a country so basically you are fighting a group within a country."

According to the dictionary a Terrorist is:

a person who practices or favors terrorsim.

"Terrorism" : 1. a terrorizing; use of terror and violence to intimidate, subjugate, etc., especially as a political weapon or policy. 2. intimidation and subjugation produced in this way.

Try telling the Iraqi people, citizens of Iran and Kuwait, citizens and Israel, that Saddam is not a terrorist.

"Saddam is an evil man. An evil man who ran a country. The only way after him was to wage war, right? But the biggest problem is we were sold a certain reason why we went after him and it turns out that that reason wasn't right. Now I know what you are going to say so save your breath. The American public wasn't sold on resolutions they were sold on "we have evidence that Saddam has WMDs". Despite your beliefs on this war numbers do not make a terrorists. The U.S. has killed a many of innocent people, we're still the only country that's used a WMD, are we terrorists?"

The United States and other members of the UN had been involved in trying to insure the disarmament of Iraq for 12 years at the time of the start of the war. Over 17 UN resolutions were passed under Chapter VII rules. Saddam refused to comply and the Coalition finally took decisive action to resolve the serious issue. This had been an ongoing issue. Every attempt was made to disarm Iraq peacefully and all failed.

President Bush went before the United Nations on September 10, 2002. He got Congress to authorize the use of force on October 11, 2002 and got another resolution from the UN authorizing the use of force on November 8, 2002.

The case for war presented during this period was primarily based on what UN inspectors had found themselves and Saddam's own addmissions from 1998. It was never incumbent upon the United States or any other member of the UN to prove that Iraq had WMD A or B at this particular location. It was incumbent upon Saddam to show where or what happened to large stocks of WMD that he had and was now failing to account for. That was his obligation per the resolutions and Saddam failed to comply.

One can take a few statements in particular speaches, essentially cherry picking, to support their claim that the President did not tell the truth. But the criteria for military action against Saddam is based on Saddam's progress or lack of progress towards Verifiable Disarmament.

The verifiable disarmament of Saddam is the central issue here. The United Nations made it the central issue of multiple resolutions passed against Saddam.

In addition to this the administration had intelligence independent of Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm that Saddam had WMD. But that was not the central case for the war against Saddam. The central case was Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm and if you look at the State Departments and White Houses papers on this, you will see that.

The investigations in Iraq have found over 300 different things that violated UN resolutions in regards to WMD. While Anthrax, Anthrax filled shells, Nerve Gas, and Nerve Gass filled shells have not been found yet, that does not mean that they do not exist. They exist in some form even if they were destroyed at what ever point. If Saddam destroyed these things, it was his responsibility to verifiably show that and he didn't. The international community does not have the luxury of simply accepting a mass murder's word that he destroyed them. The resolutions were clear that verifiable disarmament was the criteria.


"The U.S. has killed a many of innocent people, we're still the only country that's used a WMD, are we terrorists?"




The United States does not target innocent civilians. That is something Saddam has done on a mass scale. The United States has used WMD on two occasions both of them 60 years ago. On those occasions, the use of WMD saved millions more lives than it took.

Saddam has used WMD more times than any other leader in history. The history of his use of WMD against Iran, and Kurdish people has been well documented. The use was not designed to save the lives of anyone or end a war, but to inflict the greatest loss of life possible.

"Your logic doesn't work."

My logic works just find and is not confined to some narrow view of what constitutes a terrorist.

 

[STING2]

what on earth would a protest against terrorists be about?

Maybe you should asked the protesters since many of them accuse Bush and Blair of being terrorist. Fizzing accuses Bush and Blair of being murders.


To me, such accusations or simply naive and wrong.

 

[BVS]

Actually I'll just let this one lie with the other sleeping dogs.

 

[Salome]

Maybe you should asked the protesters since many of them accuse Bush and Blair of being terrorist. Fizzing accuses Bush and Blair of being murders.


To me, such accusations or simply naive and wrong.

I don't need to ask anyone about that because I already stated in the first part of my post that protests against your own government makes sense since your government is supposed to look after your interests and protest are about the only thing left when you in your opinion that are not doing this
if I or anyone else was to decide whether the issue on hand justifies a protest would go against just about anything democracy is about

protesting against people who do not need to answer to you (well, they should on a human level) in any way makes no sense

suggesting that because people who protest Bush and Blair should therefore also protest Osama Bin Laden makes no sense and only helps to kill proper discussion in this thread IMO

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

so the millions of dollars saddam gave to the families of palestinian suicide bombers doesn't count as supporting terrorism anymore?

 

[what a bomb!]

Opps just seen my mistake... I meant Bono has said he is no longer a pacifist not ATHEIST! I do not have the source here but I remember reading the interview and someone on here was "ooohhhh noooooo!" about the fact he is no longer a pacifist (obviously he does not support all violent means lets get that clear right now!)

To the ones against the war, wonder how far your voices would be heard if this was world war 3,4,5,6? Yes someone on here is going to say the way the USA are going they will be the cause of world war 3,4,5,6 but isnt it better to get rid of the little hitlers first before it escalates? Better to had tried then not at all!

Just imagine if all countries were like the middle east! there would be nothing left! We wouldn't be here now!

 

[STING2]

Opps just seen my mistake... I meant Bono has said he is no longer a pacifist not ATHEIST! I do not have the source here but I remember reading the interview and someone on here was "ooohhhh noooooo!" about the fact he is no longer a pacifist (obviously he does not support all violent means lets get that clear right now!)

To the ones against the war, wonder how far your voices would be heard if this was world war 3,4,5,6? Yes someone on here is going to say the way the USA are going they will be the cause of world war 3,4,5,6 but isnt it better to get rid of the little hitlers first before it escalates? Better to had tried then not at all!

Just imagine if all countries were like the middle east! there would be nothing left! We wouldn't be here now!

The source for Bono saying he is no longer a Pacifist is the year end issue of HOTPRESS for December 2001. Bono is on the cover and there is a lengthy interview inside in which Bono not only expresses the fact he is not longer a Pacifist but also says he supports the war on terrorism and the invasion of Afghanistan by US forces. Actually this is not the first time Bono has supported military action. Bono was a big supporter of military action in Bosnia as well.

 

[Saracene]

personaly I think stating "where were the protest against terrorists etc" is rather silly

protest against governments are held because we have chosen those to represent us and therefore have the liberty to protest when we feel that they're not doing that

A fair point indeed. Which nevertheless makes me wonder what, then, the anti-war protests in countries -not- involved in war in any way were about. The people there, after all, were protesting about the actions of a government they didn't choose and which doesn't need to answer to them.