Mass Protest in UK Against 'Bombers' Blair and Bush

[TheStinger]

The left in the UK used to hate the UN as it wasn't espousing their ideals. Now that their is a chance it might oppose the war on Iraq it is suddenly the only place to derive legitimacy from.
a large number of the people on the march would oppose americas right to defend itself if another country invaded it

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Ha ha, 150,000 protest...and MILLIONS didn't.

Support for war is now better then 70% in the US, at 65% in Britain from latest polls.

Nothing like an ol peace rally to give hope to the fading Left's dying influence.

Which polls are you looking at?
From

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2002/guardian-iraq-poll.htm

and

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2002/guardian-poll-sept-2002.htm

Q1. Would you approve or disapprove of a military attack on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein?
Approve 36%
Disapprove 40%
Don't know/refuse 24%

Q2. Before committing British forces to an attack on Iraq what approval do you think the British government should seek?
The approval of the United Nations

Yes 86%
No 9%
Don't know 6%

The approval of the British Parliament
Yes 86%
No 10%
Don't know 4%

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Possibly as many as 20 missiles, and an airforce that could only threaten Iran and Syria. You can have the biggest stockpile in the world, won't do you no good if you can't deliver them. Hussein can't take over the world with one or even a handful of tiny bombs. He couldn't even stand up to the US when had a viable stockpile and weapons platforms, let alone now.

20 missiles? Don't need 'em if you leave him alone.

20 warheads? That could blow up Vancouver, San Fransisco, San Diego, The Canal, Miami, Norfolk, New York, Philidelphia, Boston, Halifax, Montreal, London, Liverpool, Marseilles, St Petersburg... That would leave 5 more to deliver by container to other places.

Too outlandish? Think about some 390 days ago.

The full horror of Hitler was never considered a possibility until he had already left the stage.

[axi]

The most his Scud missiles can travel to the NW is the island of Crete (half of it actually) if he launched from the border with Jordan at full fuel load. The question however is not if a missile could reach Crete, but if it would hit it...

[notyoueither]

Why is everyone so stuck on missiles?

Surely there are better ways to strike the great Satan.

[Rogan Josh]

As a matter of interest, if you guys had been posting on this board in 1933 (or just discussing down the pub, since we didn't have these boards in 1933) what action would you have advocated against Germany? And what do you think the effects would have been? (Not that I think Saddam is anywhere near as dangerous as Hitler.)

Would you have wanted a first stike, maybe bombing the hell out of Berlin? Would you have tried to kill as many Germans as possible? Or would you have tried to prevent the German growth of militarism by some other means? Would you instead have supported his internal opposition?

Do you think attacking a Germany which had not yet made any hostile moves itself would have engendered more bitterness among the Germna people, and caused more problems in the future?

And if you would have tried a more peaceful resolution with Germany, why would you be more hostile with Iraq? Is it because the Germans are white? (just wondering... )

I think we have to remember that it was the 'peace settlement' after WWI which caused Hitler to come to power -- not appeasement.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why is everyone so stuck on missiles?

Surely there are better ways to strike the great Satan.

Holy water and a crucifix should do the trick

[notyoueither]

... and the little Winston, and the little Vino, and the little Boris, and the little Markos...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
As a matter of interest, if you guys had been posting on this board in 1933 (or just discussing down the pub, since we didn't have these boards in 1933) what action would you have advocated against Germany? And what do you think the effects would have been? (Not that I think Saddam is anywhere near as dangerous as Hitler.)

Would you have wanted a first stike, maybe bombing the hell out of Berlin? Would you have tried to kill as many Germans as possible? Or would you have tried to prevent the German growth of militarism by some other means? Would you instead have supported his internal opposition?

Do you think attacking a Germany which had not yet made any hostile moves itself would have engendered more bitterness among the Germna people, and caused more problems in the future?

And if you would have tried a more peaceful resolution with Germany, why would you be more hostile with Iraq? Is it because the Germans are white? (just wondering... )

I think we have to remember that it was the 'peace settlement' after WWI which caused Hitler to come to power -- not appeasement.

There were those who advocated squashing the Nazi bug by conventional means at an early date when they broke the terms of the peace. By the way, that is an act of war. They would have acted before the German army could have resisted the French, let alone the Czech and British (and probably the Poles).

Alas, Churchill had to wait his turn.

Next argument.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by notyoueither
There were those who advocated squashing the Nazi bug by conventional means at an early date when they broke the terms of the peace. By the way, that is an act of war. They would have acted before the German army could have resisted the French, let alone the Czech and British (and probably the Poles).

Do you think that would have helped? What do you imagine would have happened afterwards? How many people would you have advocated killing?

[notyoueither]

Helped? Are you serious?

Number of dead? A frack of a lot fewer than ended up dead the way of the appeasers and do-nothings.

[notyoueither]

... by several 10's of millions.

[Rogan Josh]

I am certainly not supporting the appeasers.

I am just curious as to what you would have done. How many Germans would you have been happy killing to stop WWII? 10 million? 20 million? All of them?

Don't you think there would have been better ways to avoid WWII?

[Clear Skies]

That question is entirely contaminated by hindsight. None of us have an unbiased perspective on historical events and so cannot hope to give an impartial and correct answer.

[Sava]

Chris was just throwing out arbitrary numbers to see if anyone was paying attention. "Seriously, 94 percent of Americans like Spam.."

Fez, please don't argue in favor of the Republican party, especially when you are only informed of what happens on a national level. Even at the local and state levels, Republicans have shown their true colors. If you're a White Anglo/Saxon Protestant male in the upper 1% income level, then Republicans represent your interests.

Anyways [/Threadjack]... Bush is keeping this Iraq thing on the forefront of political talk because his domestic agenda is sh!t. His approval rating always takes a nose dive when he talks about domestic issues. He's going to beat this terrorism and Iraq thing like a dead horse until 2004. But I have faith that the American people will eventually see through the bull sh!t.