Mass US protest against Iraq war

#1
Tens of thousands of protesters have demonstrated in Washington to demand the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
The rally comes days before Congress is to discuss President George W Bush's new strategy for Iraq - including the despatch of 21,500 additional troops.

The protesters, chanting "Bring the troops home", were joined by Vietnam War-era protester, actress Jane Fonda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6306665.stm
 
#2
Sorry, this isn't a "mass" anything. You don't like the war, I understand that. However, don't make things out to be what they aren't.

"Tens of thousands" in a population of 300 million is merely a drop...
 
#3
Phil306 said:
Sorry, this isn't a "mass" anything. You don't like the war, I understand that. However, don't make things out to be what they aren't.

"Tens of thousands" in a population of 300 million is merely a drop...
...in the ocean. Absolutely agree. So called right for protests for demonstrations is a senselees thing. You have right to protest, a government (administration) has right to ignore it.

It is a democracy.
 
#4
Only 4 years late. Still, better late than never, I suppose even though it's clear from recent statements that Cheney and his monkey no longer give a toss what the people they work for think.

And while I'm on the subject of who's supposed to be in charge, this Op Ed ran in the NY Times on Saturday:

At Ease, Mr. President
By GARRY WILLS
Published: January 27, 2007
Evanston, Ill.

WE hear constantly now about “our commander in chief.” The word has become a synonym for “president.” It is said that we “elect a commander in chief.” It is asked whether this or that candidate is “worthy to be our commander in chief.”

But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army.

I first cringed at the misuse in 1973, during the “Saturday Night Massacre” (as it was called). President Richard Nixon, angered at the Watergate inquiry being conducted by the special prosecutor Archibald Cox, dispatched his chief of staff, Al Haig, to arrange for Mr. Cox’s firing. Mr. Haig told the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, to dismiss Mr. Cox. Mr. Richardson refused, and resigned. Then Mr. Haig told the second in line at the Justice Department, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. Mr. Ruckelshaus refused, and accepted his dismissal. The third in line, Robert Bork, finally did the deed.

What struck me was what Mr. Haig told Mr. Ruckelshaus, “You know what it means when an order comes down from the commander in chief and a member of his team cannot execute it.” This was as great a constitutional faux pas as Mr. Haig’s later claim, when President Reagan was wounded, that “Constitutionally ... I’m in control.”

President Nixon was not Mr. Ruckelshaus’s commander in chief. The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” That title is rarely — more like never — heard today. It is just “commander in chief,” or even “commander in chief of the United States.” This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline. In wartime, it is true, people submit to the national leadership more than in peacetime. The executive branch takes actions in secret, unaccountable to the electorate, to hide its moves from the enemy and protect national secrets. Constitutional shortcuts are taken “for the duration.” But those impositions are removed when normal life returns.

But we have not seen normal life in 66 years. The wartime discipline imposed in 1941 has never been lifted, and “the duration” has become the norm. World War II melded into the cold war, with greater secrecy than ever — more classified information, tougher security clearances. And now the cold war has modulated into the war on terrorism.

There has never been an executive branch more fetishistic about secrecy than the Bush-Cheney one. The secrecy has been used to throw a veil over detentions, “renditions,” suspension of the Geneva Conventions and of habeas corpus, torture and warrantless wiretaps. We hear again the refrain so common in the other wars — If you knew what we know, you would see how justified all our actions are.

But we can never know what they know. We do not have sufficient clearance.

When Adm. William Crowe, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, criticized the gulf war under the first President Bush, Secretary of State James Baker said that the admiral was not qualified to speak on the matter since he no longer had the clearance to read classified reports. If he is not qualified, then no ordinary citizen is. We must simply trust our lords and obey the commander in chief.

The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements. We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines.

That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket).

We used to take pride in civilian leadership of the military under the Constitution, a principle that George Washington embraced when he avoided military symbols at Mount Vernon. We are not led — or were not in the past — by caudillos.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s prescient last book, “Secrecy,” traced the ever-faster-growing secrecy of our government and said that it strikes at the very essence of democracy — accountability of representatives to the people. How can the people hold their representatives to account if they are denied knowledge of what they are doing? Wartime and war analogies are embraced because these justify the secrecy. The representative is accountable to citizens. Soldiers are accountable to their officer. The dynamics are different, and to blend them is to undermine the basic principles of our Constitution.

Garry Wills, a professor emeritus of history at Northwestern, is the author, most recently, of “What Paul Meant.”
 
#5
KGB_resident said:
Phil306 said:
Sorry, this isn't a "mass" anything. You don't like the war, I understand that. However, don't make things out to be what they aren't.

"Tens of thousands" in a population of 300 million is merely a drop...
...in the ocean. Absolutely agree. So called right for protests for demonstrations is a senselees thing. You have right to protest, a government (administration) has right to ignore it.

It is a democracy.
The Gospel according to St Vladimir of Putin, Chapter 12, Verses 7-11.
 
#6
#7
What they don't seem to understand is that we are so far into the sh1te-hole that if we pull out it will end as a BIG fcuk-up
 
#8
Mazur_UK said:
What they don't seem to understand is that we are so far into the sh1te-hole that if we pull out it will end as a BIG fcuk-up
Mazur my friend - wet fish time - slap, slap.
IT IS ALREADY A BIG FCUK UP -IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO TRY AND MAKE IT A SMALLER ONE!
 
#10
Phil306 said:
Sorry, this isn't a "mass" anything. You don't like the war, I understand that. However, don't make things out to be what they aren't.

"Tens of thousands" in a population of 300 million is merely a drop...
Can you enlighten us with your version of what a "mass" anything is? Do the protestors on any occasion need to be a majority of the voting public?
 
#11
spiffy said:
A small protest with that traitor bitch hanoi jane present. I do hope she has a fatal illness soon.
If the likes of Jane Fonda are protesting in order that the likes of you are kept chained to your post rather than being allowed to run free in the yard - I'm all for it, in a big, big way.
 
#12
This is highly significant. Public dissent in the US was almost unknown prior to 2006. Remember the Dixie Chicks attacking Dubya and their later apology? The well of patriotic support that saw French fries referred to as "freedom fries" has been well and truly drained.

I predict Bush and Cheney will have to resign or face impeachment when the surge fails.
 
#13
If memory serves, the protests against the Vietnam War in the US were also fobbed off as "not representative of all Septics", until the gobment of the day realised that they were.

MsG
 
#14
I thought it rather funny that the anti war lobby had to drag out some dried out yesterdays professional 'jump up and downer' to try and give their campaign a kick start. Did You notice that the ONLY member of congress to turn up told them to get over there in order to give the other democrats some spine - why was that do You suppose?

Isn't it strange that while millions of illegal immigrants can go on strike the 'lets not do the right thing' campaign can't even swamp the Capital? and what has happened to the British Stop the War Coalition
 
#15
Sven said:
I thought it rather funny that the anti war lobby had to drag out some dried out yesterdays professional 'jump up and downer' to try and give their campaign a kick start. Did You notice that the ONLY member of congress to turn up told them to get over there in order to give the other democrats some spine - why was that do You suppose?

Isn't it strange that while millions of illegal immigrants can go on strike the 'lets not do the right thing' campaign can't even swamp the Capital? and what has happened to the British Stop the War Coalition
They've made great progress (obviously!), and their work is ongoing.

Just because you're not hearing or reading about it doesn't mean they've given up and gone home. At times like this, with news management more to the fore, you often have to go and seek it out. Here's a link to help you anyway:

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/new/events/index.htm
 
#16
Somewhere on the Huffington a couple of weeks ago I read an informative article as to why even though this war is more disastrous than Vietnam ever was there had in fact been few demo's against it.
I'm afraid I can't remember who wrote it or I'd dig it out and post it.

What it boiled down to was there are now those in America who fight wars and those in America that don't.
It mentioned that a lot people who are carrying most of the burden of this war come anyway from traditional military stock and poor areas.

It was they who were the most fervent of Bush supporters and also a lot of them are congregants of these new churches that preach total obedience to god.

So other Americans who live other lives have until now had the view that one might just as well let them who approved of Bush and his wars just get on with it.

Not a good situation for American society I would have thought.
And one that might have social/political ramifications running down the years for sometime to come.

In the Vietnam war everybody was involved.
But there were some who supported it and others who didn't.
That alone still plays a part in the American conscience.

Here is a situation where those that approved of the war often fought it and those that didn't approve of it also didn't fight it.

IMHO, even if the war was to end tomorrow and everybody went home that difference in view will not only exacerbate future social/political discourse in America but that over the coming years rather than it mulling into a sort of healed consensus will in fact later grow more antagonistic.
And the essential fuel source of the growing antagonism will be when the Americans discover how much money its all cost and how much they have to pay.

In a few years time the sons and daughters of those who strongly supported the war will begin to discover that they, who are amongst the poorer section of American society are going to have to pay for the war all over again not now with blood but with higher taxes and cut backs in services.

This could cause a rift in American society that might very well more or less match the still existent one of the differences between the Confederate branch and the Union branches of society.
This is one of the tragedies of this war that is yet to unfold.
 
#17
frenchperson said:
Sven said:
I thought it rather funny that the anti war lobby had to drag out some dried out yesterdays professional 'jump up and downer' to try and give their campaign a kick start. Did You notice that the ONLY member of congress to turn up told them to get over there in order to give the other democrats some spine - why was that do You suppose?

Isn't it strange that while millions of illegal immigrants can go on strike the 'lets not do the right thing' campaign can't even swamp the Capital? and what has happened to the British Stop the War Coalition
They've made great progress (obviously!), and their work is ongoing.

Just because you're not hearing or reading about it doesn't mean they've given up and gone home. At times like this, with news management more to the fore, you often have to go and seek it out. Here's a link to help you anyway:

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/new/events/index.htm
Of course they have, they are going from strength to strength - then.

How many marched in London just after the invasion? Compare and contrast with the more recent marches they have organised. What was the percentage of those disagreeing with the war in the run up to the last general election and who got in?

I predict that soon the Stop the War will be reduced to the level of the Menwith Hill protesters I occasionally see on my travels to Harrogate - wave a banner, get arrested and think that they have done something positive
 
#18
Having perused the website Frenchperson linked to I was interested to note that there was no post meeting analysis of the various meetings they have already held - no jubilent crowing about the meetings being a sell out, they haven't even reported what the various speakers said.

Incidentally, how many bums on seats can the Sir Charles Wilson building hold - it being a converted church and all?, or the Methodist Hall in Westminster, or the Friends Meeting Room in WC1 - thousands? Hundreds?

Of course the proof of the pudding will be the march on the 24th of February - will they eclipse the million who marched the first time. I await the next month with interest
 
#19
Maybe this might be away to go,
from a poster commenting on an article by someone called Russel Shaw on the huffington:

Uh...yeah....

FIRST - watch the Libby trial and JUMP ON THE FIRST FACT that Cheney lied and broke his oath of office.

REMOVE CHENEY FROM OFFICE (see Spiro Agnew for reference)

SECOND - REMOVE BUSH FROM OFFICE DUE TO MEDICAL/PSCHYCOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. There has to be SOMEthing buried in that rulebook that Sen. Byrd pulls out of his vestpocket.

There - that removes the obviously mentally ill duo of faith-based doomday from poking at that big red button with "EASY" on it.

IT BOILS DOWN TO GETTING OVER THE EMBARRASSMENT OF HAVING TO DO THIS VERY REAL DEED THAT IS KEEPING NORMAL AMERICANS FROM DOING THEIR DUTY AS REPRESENTATIVES.

Use it or Lose it, folks.

And a brisk walk over to yell at the symbol of all that's wrong with America today is a very very healthy thing to do.

I encourage everyone to try it at least once.
 
#20
SLRboy said:
Maybe this might be away to go,
from a poster commenting on an article by someone called Russel Shaw on the huffington:

Uh...yeah....

FIRST - watch the Libby trial and JUMP ON THE FIRST FACT that Cheney lied and broke his oath of office.

REMOVE CHENEY FROM OFFICE (see Spiro Agnew for reference)

SECOND - REMOVE BUSH FROM OFFICE DUE TO MEDICAL/PSCHYCOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. There has to be SOMEthing buried in that rulebook that Sen. Byrd pulls out of his vestpocket.

There - that removes the obviously mentally ill duo of faith-based doomday from poking at that big red button with "EASY" on it.

IT BOILS DOWN TO GETTING OVER THE EMBARRASSMENT OF HAVING TO DO THIS VERY REAL DEED THAT IS KEEPING NORMAL AMERICANS FROM DOING THEIR DUTY AS REPRESENTATIVES.

Use it or Lose it, folks.

And a brisk walk over to yell at the symbol of all that's wrong with America today is a very very healthy thing to do.

I encourage everyone to try it at least once.
Hmmmm

Has about the same legs as impeachment

:thumbdown:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top