Millions protest U.S.-led war on Iraq Last Updated Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:23:54 EST LONDON - Millions of people have taken to the streets around the world to denounce the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The protests on Saturday mark the first anniversary of the U.S.-led war on Iraq. In Paris, an estimated 10,000 people walked peacefully through the centre of the French capital. One banner read: "Together for peace, for democracy and human rights." In the Australian city of Brisbane, protestors unfurled a banner: "We still say no to war." "The world is less safe now than it was a year ago," said Annette Brownlie, one of the demonstrators. More than 30,000 people turned out in Japan to protest their government's involvement. The country sent 1,000 personnel to Iraq, the largest foreign deployment since the Second World War. Invasion caused more terrorism Other rallies were held in South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand and Hong Kong. "Bush's invasion of Iraq has incited more terrorism," said Lau San-ching as he marched to the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong. Protestors in Manila clashed with riot police as they tried to push their way to the U.S. Embassy. Demonstrators threw stones at security, who responded with water cannons. In London, two Greenpeace activists scaled the Big Ben clocktower to hang a banner that read "Time for Truth." Protestors in about a dozen cities in Spain have started their walk. "The government took the country to war, but it was ordinary people who got hurt and killed by the terrorists," said film producer Lila Pla Alemany in Barcelona, Spain's second city. Alemany is referring to the country's 1,300 troops stationed in Iraq. Spain's new president has pledged to bring the troops back. Protestors are also holding memorials for the 202 victims of the March 11 train bombings in Madrid. The bombings are believed to be connected to al Qaeda. Hundreds of rallies are scheduled to take place across Europe and North America. Written by CBC News Online staff
How many terrorist attacks have there been, globally, in the last year, anyway? I know that in 2002, attacks were way down from the year before (actually, way down for any year in the graph I saw, which dated to 1981). I didn't see a number for 2003, though (it may not have been released yet. The release about the 2002 numbers was dated April 30, 2003). Here's the release about 2002: http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/texts/03043001.htm Just wondering about the claim that the world is less safe than it was prior to the war. I would buy an argument that the Iraqi war was not necessary in the fight against terrorism, but this idea that the war itself has made the world more dangerous seems to be saying that terrorists have a legitimate gripe and only attack when provoked to do so. If that's the case, we shouldn't have any problem sitting down and negotiating with al Qaeda and coming to an agreement that will end terrorism forever, right? They have legitimate and reasonable demands, right?
That's a rather short sighted view of things. The argument that the Iraq war would fuel terrorism is a long term argument in that it will build a climate of resentment against the US, a fact that is reinforced by the latest Pew surveys (posted elsewhere; IIRC something like 35% of all Turks, the most pro-Western muslim nation, feel that suicide bombings against americans in Iraq are justified!). If 50 mililion angry pakistanis grow up watching images of the US kill muslims on al-jazeera....etc. But anywy, if you do want to count up terrorist incidents, I think the daily attacks in Iraq generally drive that number way up (it's only fair to count those if you see the iraq war as inextricably linked to the war on terror) As for your last contention, we did accede to most of Al qaeda's demands, we pulled our forces from Saudi Arabia, to no avail. There's a difference between negotiating with terrorists and acting like a bunch of cowboy jackasses and pissing everybody off (and then looking bad afterwards because of the lies you told about it beforehand.)
How many Iraqis have been killed in those suicide bombings that are targeting Americans? Collateral damage is a b!tch.
One cannot "negotiate" with terrorists...There is no rationale to that and has been proven as such...Protesting is something that can happen when terrorists don't have you killed or mutilated...People who protest should realize their existance is safeguarded since we are making clear strides in the war on terror...The people of Iraq have a better future and they reflect this fact in the polls I have seen...Iraq is a step toward the war on terror that has an absolute impact in negating future sources of resources that surely would have been welcomed to the terrorists...
but people still blame the US for it. Not entirely rational, but true. Read the surveys, the numbers are there in black and white. Osama has a higher approval rating than Bush in the arab world.
Iraq doesn't negate anything, except to further discredit the U.S. in the eyes of those who want to demonize the U.S. Iraq wasn't a terror threat to us. Iraq wasn't a WMD threat to us. They weren't a threat to us at all.
That's an excellent point. One question, though...why haven't you shared your info re: Iraq as a terrorist threat to us with the CIA, NSA guys, etc. who all concluded that it didn't exist? Surely if you are in possessin of such evidence it is your duty to turn it over to the appropriate organizations. Otherwise the rest of us are left having to agree with the NIE report, etc. which concluded that Iraq was no threat to us through terrorism, and in fact was the one region in the ME where the power in place had distanced himself from radical Islamic terrorists.
Sam...it is worth pointing out that this isn't just the status quo either. After 9-11, even the Arab world was supporting the war on terror, which was an oncredible development, and could have been the key to the whole damned thing. What changed it all? Trying to deceive/force the rest of the world into accepting that another war with a disparate agenda advocated by a stubborn extremist administration was part and parcel to the war on terror which conveniently happened to fit into aother WH agenda. We had the leadershp on the war on terror, and we had the support. We expolited it, not to fight terror, but to serve what the WH saw as our interests, and we lost the support we need. Good job.
Nice, SF. Is Hayes around? Essentially the maxim is when fighting superior forces; 1) Try and isolate them. 2) Try and have them operate on terrain/in the manner least conducive to their tactics. 3) Try and confuse them. 4) If possible, make them spread out their forces into smaller, more vulnerable target groups. This was done in Nam, in Spain, in Afghanistan...and as the man said, is pretty cleary being done here.
I am not entirely in agreement with your summation that the conclusion for a terroristic type of threat didn't exist based on the following information I have read; In addition, the wording I have received has indicated the NIE report presents conclusions which I deem as true indicators of a nature of a realizing threat in Iraq... In October of 2002 the National Intelligence Council, the highest analytical body in the U.S. intelligence community, issued a classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD, representing the consensus of the intelligence community. Although after the war some complained that the NIE had been a rush job, and that the NIC should have been more careful in its choice of language, in fact the report accurately reflected what intelligence analysts had been telling Clinton Administration officials for years in verbal briefings. A declassified version of the 2002 NIE was released to the public in July of last year. Its principal conclusions: "Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." (The classified version of the NIE gave an estimate of five to seven years.) "Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess [that] Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." "If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year ... Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade." "Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX ... Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents." "All key aspects—R&D, production, and weaponization—of Iraq's offensive BW [biological warfare] program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war ... Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability, which includes mobile facilities; these facilities can evade detection, are highly survivable, and can exceed the production rates Iraq had prior to the Gulf war." U.S. government analysts were not alone in these views. In the late spring of 2002, several officials participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: Did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes). Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France's President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, "There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ... in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
You might have wanted to read a little further down; we were discussing the threat via terrorism or otherwise that Iraq reresented to the US; and equating the war in Iraq ith the war on terror, as you asserted with these statements: I stated that this was contrary to the intelligence communitiy's assesments, as the NIE report clearly stated, and CLarke et al have demonstrated. You try and respond by quoting the NIE report section that suggest Saddam is pursuing WMDs, completely overlooking that fact that the same report goes on to state that he is no threat to us, directly or through terrorists, even if he does have WMDs. WHile the WMD discussion is interesting, I do think the section that deal with whether or not Saddam is a threat to us directly or through terrorists is more significant to the discussion of...whether or not Saddam was a threat to us directly or through terrorists... Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war. Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks—more likely with biological than chemical agents—probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives. • The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been, directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory. Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida—with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States—could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct. • In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him. You can maintain your opinion that Saddam was a terrorist threat, but unless you have evidence to the contrary you must admit that A) It is an opinion only, and contrary to that provided by the experts whose job it is to assess these things, and B) the administration misrepresented what the intelligence community was telling them about Iraq as a threat.
You rang? Ask and ye shall receive. As I recall you quoted Sun Tzu said 'don't attack unless you are attacked' which would seem to be out of place in Iraq, where non-Iraqis have come to fight depite not actually having a beef in the action. Strange how people can be taken out of context, huh? But you've never really been that consistent in your warrants for your claims, so why start now? Yep. Iraq sure was a democratic state committed to human rights before our 'occupation,' wasn't it (is a 'lol' really necessary here?).
I was referencing you for saying my argument that there are exteme similarities between Afghanistan and Iraq was ludicrous. But, if you want to bring up Sun Tzu, that was never, ever the quote I mentioned, and is also not a psotion of Sun Tzu's. The closest I can think of that connects is that you never, ever make war unless you have exhausted all other avenues, as A) Once begun, it takes on a life of it''s own that you cannot anticipate B) War is easier to begin than end, and C) You can take back words recover from insults, but you cannot undo war. Either way, even if your quote had been accurate, your position on it would be unsupportable. Were you excluding the principle to nations only, in which case no other nation has attacked us in Iraq, merely independants, or were you applying it across national barriers, in which case the common link these people see is their region, culture, and religion, in which case they are only defending themselves aginst our attack. EIther way, non-sequitorial argument. And I've never been consistent huh? Ok, about what issues, positions, etc. have I wavered? I still say your point that we are facing a mushroom cloud over NYC doesn't dismiss my moralizing...are you still of that position? I still say that we have not been able to prevent nuclear proliferation...are you still of that psoition? I still say that going to war on intel is an incredibly unsure proposition...do you still disagree? Etc. etc.
Missed this point. For one thing, are you denying that we are, in fact, occupying Iraq? If so, you should let our military know, they're calling it an occupation without the semi-quotes. For another, this idea that because what we may be offering will eventually be better than what Saddam offered justifies the war or makes it about democracy andhuman rights is misleading, and I think you know that.
