Massive World Protests Tomorrow

[Drake Tungsten]

It's propably because nobody else sees no reason in that war. Me included.

Don't you find it a little strange that the two countries that will sacrifice the most if a war is fought are the ones who are most supportive of war? More importantly, if both the people of the United States and the people of Iraq are willing to go through a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein, why should anyone else's opinion matter?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
When's the next election in Australia? Howard probably won't be in much trouble if the war goes well.

Probably. But will it go well?

[aaglo]

(snip)...why should anyone else's opinion matter?

Because war isn't fun?

[Drake Tungsten]

But will it go well?

I certainly hope so, for the sake of the Iraqi people and our troops.

[Az]

actually, Drake, this is a very interesting observation.

the people that risk the most, do support it the most. In Israel and in Kuwait too. I wonder why is that.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Azazel
actually, Drake, this is a very interesting observation.

the people that risk the most, do support it the most. In Israel and in Kuwait too. I wonder why is that.

Well in Israels case war will result in a net reduction in the number of Arabs.
In kuwaits case they will be free to buy more BMW and Mercedes and horses becasue Saddam can't come and steal them.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I find it funny that the people who are most against war are the ones who will not be affected by it. It's American and Iraqi blood that is going to be spilt to remove Saddam Hussein, yet a majority of Americans support the war and there has been some evidence that the Iraqis do as well.

That's because it often takes an outsider to see the insantiy of a conflict, where the participants are hungry for each others blood and are blind to reason.

It's all that patriotism and nationalism.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by obiwan18
One reason I didn't go is the 'party mentality' of the protesters, as well as the behavior of the anarchists. Why support those who damage everyone else's cause with their terrible behavior?

Finally, how welcome are Christians at these kind of rallies?

What percentage of that 2 million people in London, or any of the protesters actually agreed with the cause of the rally?

The march in Toronto had many religons there, some of the organisers where from religous groups and made it a point to have churchs and faiths of many denominations attending. There was no rioting or looting, the closest it came to that was some taunting of the police outside the embassy, otherwise people where just chanting, singing and dancing.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's because it often takes an outsider to see the insantiy of a conflict, where the participants are hungry for each others blood and are blind to reason.

It's all that patriotism and nationalism.

This makes no sense. The American and Iraqi people support the same goal; the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. How exactly does that make them "hungry for each other's blood"? I think both sides would love it if no Iraqi civilians and no US troops were killed in the coming war...

[aaglo]

I think both sides would love it if no Iraqi civilians and no US troops were killed in the coming war

Funny you should mention... what about Iraqi troops? Reading between the lines, they are expendable? From your point of view that may be the case. But from my point of view the life of an Iraqi soldier is as valuable as life of an American soldier.

And not all Iraqi's support your cause. It's partly true, partly American propaganda.

[GePap]

How many Iraqi's want the war, thsat is unknown: we will only really know once the war begins.

As for the US:

Someone did a very ineteresting study of American public opinion on war. If you look at all the polls going back, you find some things out; 30% of Americans always support war (in 1973 that's the % that supported the war in Vietnam). You could tell this 30% we have to invade antartica and they would sign up. 10% always oppose war (about the % that did not back the war in Afghanistan) and the remaining 60% are left to be convinced one way or the other. As of the lastest polls, 57% of Americans would support going to war with a "coolition of the willing". So the war side got its 30% plus 27% , while the anti's got their 10% plus 33% of those to be convinced.

As for the notion that Americans will be the ones bleeding: first, the Brits and Aussies have sent troops, so they also get a chance at dying. second, from all I have heard peope say, including Drake, this will be a 'cakewalk", so where does the great national sacrifice come from? there are 280 million Americans: how many of them might actually know someone who dies in that war personally? The fact is, if you ask people whether they support a war in Iraq that would, lets say, go on for a year and cost 10,000 American dead, and the majority spoken off all of a sudden disappears.

[The Mad Monk]

Eight cops were injured during confrontations with protesters here. One officer was kicked in the head and a deputy inspector was punched in the face, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said.

A police horse was hurt when a protester punched it in the face and dragged it to the ground by its reigns, Kelly added. The horse, Boots, and the riding officer suffered minor injuries.

These protestors didn't do their cause any favors.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Don't you find it a little strange that the two countries that will sacrifice the most if a war is fought are the ones who are most supportive of war? More importantly, if both the people of the United States and the people of Iraq are willing to go through a war to get rid of Saddam Hussein, why should anyone else's opinion matter?

The US is getting involved in the interests of another sovereign state. 3rd party nations should be allowed to object in self-interest. If the US is allowed to take action in a foreign and sovereign nation simply because its people want to then it is a step towards giving carte blanche to the US to do whatever it likes wherever it likes whenever it likes.

[The Mad Monk]

Yes, and in the end, they should allow their self-interest to determine the strength of those objections.

[Arrian]

I don't even remember which poster said this, it was so many pages ago, but I wanted to thank him for a good laugh:

Interesting speakers included Rev. Jesse Jackson...

As for the protests: good for those who went out and had their say. Free speech and all that. I'll leave it at that.

-Arrian