Tens of thousands take to the streets in D.C. for protest

[Chewbacca]

These protests are probably going to get bigger and louder the longer the occupation continues.

Link

In D.C., a Diverse Mix Renews War Protest Tens of thousands of antiwar demonstrators marched in Washington yesterday to call for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, turning out in smaller numbers than for prewar protests but making plain their opposition during a noisy yet peaceful procession. From a stage on the Mall and along a route that ringed the Washington Monument, the White House and the Justice Department, protesters lodged an array of grievances against the Bush administration's domestic and foreign policies, including the financial and human costs of the occupation and the effect of the Patriot Act on civil liberties. Organizers of the two coalitions that sponsored the demonstration, International ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice, said the morning rally at the Washington Monument and a march through downtown that grew throughout the afternoon signaled a revival of the antiwar movement, which had not staged a major street demonstration in Washington since the fall of Baghdad in April. "The movement has gotten a very big gust of wind in its sails at the very moment that the Bush administration is slipping in the polls," said Brian Becker, an organizer with ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. Yesterday's march coincided with protests in more than two dozen cities across the United States and around the world, including San Francisco, Anchorage and Paris. D.C. police and U.S. Park Police were out in force in vehicles, on motorcycles and bicycles and on horseback in the District. D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey and a Park Police spokesman said that there had been no arrests as of late afternoon. The demonstrators represented a diverse mix of dissent, from suburban high school students to gray-haired retirees, from fathers pushing their children in strollers to Muslim American college students shouting through bullhorns. There were people from D.C. Poets Against the War, the Louisville Peace Action Community, Northern Virginians for Peace and Central Ohioans for Peace, among many others. Banners in Spanish, Korean, Urdu, Hebrew, Arabic and Tagalog decried the war. Smaller marches began at various locations in the city and led to the main rally, including those organized by Muslim American and by African American activists. Demonstrators criticized the administration's prewar assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda and condemned the domestic war on terrorism as an attack on civil liberties, particularly the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism legislation the president signed into law two years ago today. They also denounced the administration's request for $87 billion for reconstruction and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan while money for schools and social services at home dwindles. "Don't give him 87 cents!" declared Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton. "Give our troops a ride home!" Sharpton was one of the day's many speakers, but their main target was out of town: President Bush left for Camp David on Friday. The crowd did not appear to match International ANSWER's Jan. 18 demonstration, the largest antiwar rally in Washington since the Vietnam War. That protest, was put at 100,000 by police and 500,000 by organizers. Nonetheless, Becker and other organizers said yesterday's turnout exceeded their expectations, and they estimated the attendance at 100,000, with crowds on the march route spilling over what they described as 23 Washington blocks. Ramsey estimated that the event drew between 40,000 and 50,000. Organizers said a large number of veterans and military families with loved ones in Iraq participated. Around her neck, Nanci Mansfield of Burnsville, N.C., wore a heart-shaped sign with a picture of her son in military uniform and the words: "Love my soldier. Hate this war." Some of the biggest applause at the rally, which filled a corner of the monument grounds at 17th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, came when Fernando Suarez del Solar of Escondido, Calif, whose Marine son was killed March 27 in Iraq, addressed the crowd. "We need to make Mr. Bush understand: He's not the owner of the lives of our children," he said. Bill Perry, 56, a construction worker from Levittown, Pa., who served in Vietnam, stood at the edge of the monument grounds in the morning, holding a homemade sign demanding that the United States get out of Iraq and the United Nations get in. "About six blocks up the street, there's a beautiful memorial for 58,000 of our brothers and sisters who died in Vietnam," said Perry, wearing a yellow sweat shirt emblazoned with an "Airborne" eagle insignia. "Already, we've lost about 350 of our own brothers and sisters in this war. One can't help but wonder how big the memorial for this war is going to have to be." The demonstration, organizers said, signified a new phase in the life of the antiwar movement. It illustrated new cooperation among often-divergent factions, as for the first time two of the biggest coalitions put their organizational muscle behind one event, sharing expenses and logistical duties. But it also seemed to reveal the movement's erratic momentum, peaking in number and visibility at the start of the year with prewar demonstrations in Washington, New York and around the world, going without large-scale street protests since April and now turning out thousands to rally. Organizers have said that mobilizing large numbers during a protracted occupation as opposed to a dramatic, imminent threat of war has been a challenge and that street demonstrations are just one way that the movement manifests itself. "No one demonstration changes U.S. policy," said Leslie Cagan, national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice. "But it's part of a process, and a demonstration like today's helps to get people recommitted." In one of yesterday's smaller pre-march gatherings, about 75 self-described "anti-capitalist" demonstrators marched around the new Washington Convention Center under heavy police escort, linking claims that the Bush administration is exploiting the people of Iraq to accusations that domestic leaders are neglecting the needs of the poor. Demonstrators circled the convention center, where Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) was sponsoring an expo for new home buyers and developers in the city. Not all groups out yesterday were against government policies. Rallies coordinated by the D.C. chapter of Free Republic, a national conservative group, served as a vocal counterpoint to the day, as did two small groups of counter-demonstrators who waved signs along Constitution Avenue denouncing the protesters. Tempers were heated, but there were no major incidents. At a park a block west of the White House, about 50 people voiced support of the administration at a Free Republic rally and held signs saying, "We gave peace a chance, we got 9/11." The group drew jeers and cries of "Shame, shame" as antiwar marchers passed. One of the counter-protesters, Doug Landry of Baton Rouge, La., a 19-year-old junior at George Washington University, held a sign saying, "Go home you commies." About 4 p.m., as the march ended and the crowd began to disperse, Mardi Crawford of Albany, N.Y., said that the day had been a success. "I think it's wonderful people are out in the streets saying the same thing a lot of people are saying inside their homes," she said. Crawford protested here in January and March. She said she would keep returning to Washington to protest, as long as she felt a need to do so.

[Chewbacca]

Ya, well I have done the whole flip-flop on the occupation. Although accutely anti-war, for some of the very reasons that have materialized post major military operations ironicly enough, I used to think now that we are there we should stay until the country is rebuilt. My veiw has shifted again slightly. The cost in both money and lives seems like it will only continue at the same grim pace. We should get out quickly, maybe not to quickly, but ASAP given the circumstances of rebuilding a solid central government and Iraqi defense force.

I guess what I am saying is that if things continue like they have been the last six months for the next six months, I may be protesting in the streets to bring the troops home and quit spending a ton of cash on Iraq, myself.

[Azred]

Oh, my goodness! Protesters! *gasp* I suppose we'd all better just do what they say!

I won't begrudge these nice people their right to protest, but if we pull out completely from Iraq it will take only 3 months for someone to step in and institute another completely repressive regime. Don't they realize this? On the other hand, it really isn't the protesters' problem, now is it? It isn't like they have to live there, and it certainly isn't like they have anything more important going on in their lives other than taking the time to go protest. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] Did they ditch their jobs and/or school for this?

I agree that we haven't learned the wisdom of letting other people solve their own problems. However, the protesters haven't learned that fighting to remove a problem that is seriously destroying people's lives is the right thing to do; neither do they seem to have the chutzpah to consider that someone else might be right.

Is this 1968 or 2003? Don't protest. If you want to do something about a situation you think is wrong, then do something about it--get involved! Find a way to help make the situation better. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

Some interesting facts that demonstrate that the protesters are correct in attempting to mobilise support for their position:

A poll released this week showed that 67 per cent of Iraqis view the American-led coalition as 'occupying powers', more than 20 per cent higher than a survey conducted shortly after the fall of the former regime. According to the poll, conducted by Iraq's Centre for Research and Strategic Studies, the number of Iraqis who view the coalition as a 'liberating' force has dropped from 43 to 15 per cent, and very few feel safe in the presence of the police or foreign armies controlling the country.

The poll highlights a growing contradiction in Iraq. As security and electricity appear to be improving, the violence directed at the occupiers in certain parts of the country, especially in the so-called Sunni triangle northwest of Baghdad, is growing. These attacks are expected to increase during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan which starts this weekend.

In a second blow to US and British hopes for a Western-modelled democracy in Iraq, the poll also revealed that the vast majority of Iraqis preferred an Islamist government - 33 per cent supporting a theocracy and 23 per cent an Islamic democracy such as that in Iran.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...071460,00.html

I think that the government needs to learn to admit not only it's mistakes but also the mess that it is in. Until it does so, it won't be able to come up with a viable and lasting solution to the chaos and anti-americanism that has come to dominate Iraqi thinking - because it isn't listening to the people with the answer. Pride can be a dangerous thing.

[Azred]

I think I will allow myself to "flip-flop" on this issue, so to speak. Skunk is right--wrongful pride can be a dangerous thing. Instead of my previous stance of "since everyone thinks we are occupying Iraq we might as well do so for real and gain whatever we can from it" my new position will be this: since everyone thinks we should leave Iraq because we are in the early stages of empire-building and that Iraq should determine its own fate, then by all means let us leave them alone. I mean completely alone--no foreign aid, no military advisors, no watchdogs, no diplomatic relations...nothing. All the energy being expended on Iraq--since they don't want us anyway--can go to solving problems at home. Why waste time and effort on those who relatively despise us? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

We could then expand this program to include everyone. We won't intervene in the actions of any other country unless they specifically ask us to do so in writing, and even then we could put the measure up for popular vote. Sound fair?

Yes...I am serious.

[Chewbacca]

Well, Azred, I agree to a large extent. Though you are aware that what you are advocating is pretty close to the Al Sharpton line, right? Did you get a new hairdo recently? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Seriously, If the majority of Iraqis don't want us there, we should leave them to their own devices. I won't go so far as say leave them totally out in the cold, but we should get our occupying force and occupational government out ASAP in order to let them take care of their own governance and security. Otherwise my concern is that the longer we stay the more overt popular support the resistance will recieve. The dead and wounded on all sides will just keep piling up.

*Sigh* What is a realistic as well as optimistic approach to this situation?

[Timber Loftis]

Whether going there was a mistake or not, we owe it to Iraq to remain until they have the systems in place to function as a free democracy. If we leave too soon, we simply risk that some leader will come to power and that a dictatorship will rise again.

It takes time. The US is pushing as fast as it possibly can to get Iraq's new army and police trained and in place. It cannot happen overnight, and the US is admittedly not as adept at this as the UN. Nevertheless, now that we are there, we must make sure the country is stable and free before we go. Patience, grasshoppers.

As for protests, let me know ahead of time the next time, so I can bring my bong to the party. [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/drunkass.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

Well I don't agree with suddenly pulling out with Iraq either. The mistake was already made - but we can't turn the clock back. One good thing has been achieved: Saddam is now a spent power - and I wouldn't change *that* for the world.

What I am most concerned with is the new constitution. As the poll suggests, the population appears to want a theocracy - but the US/UK are refusing to allow this. If we go ahead and simply impose our solution on Iraq, we will set the seeds for civil war and the birth of a new dictatorship.

Better to do what the UN wanted: re-instate the 1958 constitution as a temporary measure, then follow up with a series of referendums to steer the talks on the new constitution. If Iraqi's truly want a theocracy, let them have it - it can still be democratic.

Personally, I think that we should work hard towards creating a provisional government chosen by the Iraqi people and make that our priority. I would achieve this by holding local elections, then asking the new village/town/city legislatures to choose representatives to send to a new Governing Council/Provisional government.

After that, as soon as there is a new police force capable of performing the task, I would devolve security issues to those police forces - keeping the troops outside the cities unless the elected body requested their assistance (you could still keep road-blocks and perform stop and searches of people entering the cities).

There has to be some visible signs that the occupiers are willing to allow Iraqi's the right of self-determination, and that long-term decisions of national significance are being made only with the acquiescence of a democratically elected body - rather than an imposed one.

[Timber Loftis]

Theocracy and fundamentalism go hand-in-hand. It is per se not a free democracy. You simply won't see it happen under the US's watch.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: It takes time. The US is pushing as fast as it possibly can to get Iraq's new army and police trained and in place. It cannot happen overnight, and the US is admittedly not as adept at this as the UN. Nevertheless, now that we are there, we must make sure the country is stable and free before we go. Patience, grasshoppers. As for protests, let me know ahead of time the next time, so I can bring my bong to the party. [img]graemlins/bonghit.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/drunkass.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] And the first paragraph in the quote actually makes some sense too. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Nope sorry, the US, as Timber said, have some responsibility toward Iraq at the moment. However your government could back down from the demand that an international force should be under US command. A UN led force would perhaps be more accepted by Iraq, at least a little more...