Fiddy

:GFYBand

"CNN's Richard Quest reported that up to half a million were taking to the streets of London to protest against U.S. and U.K.-led military action."

BBC reports that police estimate "well beyond 500,000". Organizers report 2 million.

CNN reporter: Up to 500,000
Police: More than 500,000
Organisers: 2 million

How consistent are these estimates and why?

I counted myself from the crowd photos and got 645,398. What do you get?

> Hey, I could bump up about 10 threads form the last 2
> pages to make you in the minority....

Well you've got that one wrong but in any case, youre thinking small time dude. Im talking world opinion, not the views of a small select group of people on a BB.

Seriously, compairing Bush to Hitler doesn't do you any favours...

Manga, you just made my point, unless you don't comprehend sarcasm!

....doesn't do any favors to Bush either.

Nice fucking post. :thumbsup

So because some are for one thing, everyone has to follow ?

If you're in a room with 15 people, and 10 of them stick their arse in the fire, do you follow ???

> So because some are for one thing, everyone has to follow ?

No, I think its great to be in a minority view and didn't say otherwise. I was merely stating a fact that you are in a minority view.

Having said that, i'll add that its a shame that some fucked up people fall into the minority not because they're able to justify their membership through intelligent dissent but through sheer ignorance and stupidity.

Only if they look like they are having a good time.

I'm not looking for any favors, I'm just stating facts. You can interpret them however you wish.

What does sarcasm look like? :)

No, you're not.

1. "The US economy is growing slower than it was 4 years ago". Fact.

2. "Bush is president". Fact.

3. "Bush has MADE the economy worse". Opinion.

See the difference?

It looks like the flesh eaten wound of an iron lion.

Hey "Colin is right" Opinion.:thumbsup

That's the dumbest comment I hear daily.

If you attack IRAK without a worldwide support, US will have more terrorist attacks then ever before.

That's my opinion too. ;-)

maybe you should check which tv channels are controlled by westinghouse and ge - then check what westinghouse and ge are doing business with and you will be amazed.

:eek7

Shouldn't these protestors be protesting IRAQ? It is Hussein's non-compliance that is causing the US to act.


I don't want war either, but I think a lot of the anger here is misguided.

99% of the world's population are ignorant and live as puppets their whole lives.

They have nothing better to do than to go and stand protesting something that the only facts they know are those they watch on TV. They want to feel a part of something.

Go to the money that financed and coordinated this and you'll see some interesting organizations behind the scenes.

CNN is the best news organization ever formed.

We live in a fucked up planet where really not much as changed from the ancient days. A few elite families, countries and companies control the bulk of the worlds resources and wealth and subjegate the rest of the populas to their whims and desires.

Nothing new, just the faces have changed. The techniques for mass control of hundreds of millions of people are at the core the same old same old.

Protestors...... :mad:

:BangBang:

This makes a lot more sense to me than the bullshit on CNN:

- Saddam is USA's puppet who doesnt give a shit about his people.
- He is only doing what he is being told, to help start this war. The same was done for the Gulf War. US has been enjoying the cheap oil since then.
- Many countries will buy weapons if the war starts and USA has a lot to sell. Good for the economy.
- Hopefully other countries won't take this too seriously or this may cause a world war.
- Europe is totally against this. Why would they want USA to try to fix it's economy while Euro is finally kicking the Dollar's ass?
- USA has been going to war every decade, and always will. It's a part of the strategy for the world financial domination.

Still waiting on your response. Define <i>fucked up people</i>. 'Cause if you're saying what i think you're saying, that's possibly one of the stupiest things i've read in quite some time.

"If you get rid of all of the people that disagree with me, then 100% of the people agree with me."

I have yet to see one good argument from the anti-war group for not going to war, other than spin.


"its about oil"

So you want a madman in control of a huge amount of oil? A man that lit oil on fire in kuwait. So we are the bad guys who are oil monger, yet it is the french, germans, russians that are appeasing a dictator in the name of their own oil interests.

Our whole infrasturcture is dependent on oil. Don't take that liquid gold for granted. If your willing to pay 5 bucks a gallon, then your entitled to this opinon. But you cant have it both ways.


"nobody supports us in this war"

All except the several european countries that do, as well as isreael, turkey, etc.


"nobody in the usa wants this war"

The only people that dont are the large amount of democrat windbags that hate bush so much they would never support him no matter what. Its political, and if was clinton dropping the bombs they would have no problem. The people of the heartland support it.


"thousands of civillians will be killed"

The millitary is pretty careful these days. Its not like we still have ww1 technology or something. These people are starving, and have no freedom whatsoever. To leave them under that rule is inhumane.


"it will create turmoil in the middle east"

So it wont be like the nice happy place it is now? lol.


"it will cause more terroist attacks here"

So we should form our policies to what terrroists that kill innocent women and children want? That is real smart. Even the french arent that cowardly.




You will have to come up with better arguments than these.

Chill out Chodadog -

All i said (as a sideline) was that as well as being a proportion of intelligent people dissenting from the popular view, there are also those who support war for war's sake. There are a lot of dumb and deluded people amongst the worlds population. Its a sad fact.

To give you an idea... when 9/11 happened, I've an acquaintance who was happy about it. I couldnt believe it. I asked him why he was happy about the deaths of thousands of innocent people and he replied "they're all on 10 million a year". It was a totally ignorant statement to make and in that split moment I knew what that guy was all about. It was motivated by being "fucked up" and jealous about his own failures in life. And because of that, he was happy to see successful people die. Honestly, my fist was dancing around, I was furious and coulda punched the guy but im glad I didnt.

I'm sure a lot of us know or have met people like that and to be honest, they form a vast majority of the uninformed, less aware, less educated public. Perhaps I could have put this in better words but this is the gist of what im trying to say.

:ak47:

I just turned into CNN at 4pm ET to check out what you are claiming. The first 15 minutes of the broadcast were dedicated to the demonstrations. Phrases such as "mass demonstrations" and "millions of protestors" were used. In addition, pictures from protests all over the world were shown. Bush's response was given less than 60 seconds.

I guess we all see what we want to see.

As I posted on another thread, the channel 4 news team interviewed an Iraqi woman who was next to all the protestors in London and she couldn't believe that people were trying to stop this happening.

They want change, at the cost of some lives, but they do want it...

I know this is not strictly on topic, but for the US guys out there, here is a link to Blix's full report, because CNN (and many other US news services) censored it.

Full text

Heres the CNN censored version.
Censored text

And heres the missing bits if you just want to read them...


""I trust that the Iraqi side will put together a similar list of names of persons who participated in the unilateral destruction of other proscribed items, notably in the biological field.

The Iraqi side also informed us that the commission, which had been appointed in the wake of our finding 12 empty chemical weapons warheads, had had its mandate expanded to look for any still existing proscribed items.

This was welcomed.

A second commission, we learnt, has now been appointed with the task of searching all over Iraq for more documents relevant to the elimination of proscribed items and programmes.

It is headed by the former minister of oil, General Amer Rashid, and is to have very extensive powers of search in industry, administration and even private houses.

The two commissions could be useful tools to come up with proscribed items to be destroyed and with new documentary evidence.

They evidently need to work fast and effectively to convince us, and the world, that this is a serious effort.

The matter of private interviews was discussed at length during our meeting.

The Iraqi side confirmed the commitment, which it made to us on 20 January, to encourage persons asked to accept such interviews, whether in or out of Iraq.

So far, we have only had interviews in Baghdad. A number of persons have declined to be interviewed, unless they were allowed to have an official present or were allowed to tape the interview.

Three persons that had previously refused interviews on Unmovic's terms, subsequently accepted such interviews just prior to our talks in Baghdad on 8 and 9 February.

These interviews proved informative. No further interviews have since been accepted on our terms.

I hope this will change. We feel that interviews conducted without any third party present and without tape recording would provide the greatest credibility.

At the recent meeting in Baghdad, as on several earlier occasions, my colleague Dr ElBaradei and I have urged the Iraqi side to enact legislation implementing the UN prohibitions regarding weapons of mass destruction.

In a letter just received two days ago, we were informed that this process was progressing well and this morning we had a message that legislation has now been adopted by the Iraqi National Assembly in an extraordinary session.

This is a positive step.

Mr President, I should like to make some comments on the role of intelligence in connection with inspections in Iraq. A credible inspection regime requires that Iraq provide full co-operation on "process" - granting immediate access everywhere to inspectors - and on substance, providing full declarations supported by relevant information and material.

However, with the closed society in Iraq of today and the history of inspections there, other sources of information, such as defectors and government intelligence agencies are required to aid the inspection process.

I remember how, in 1991, several inspections in Iraq, which were based on information received from a government, helped to disclose important parts of the nuclear
weapons programme.

It was realised that an international organisation authorised to perform inspections anywhere on the ground could make good use of information obtained from
governments with eyes in the sky, ears in the ether, access to defectors, and both eyes and ears on the market for weapons-related material.

It was understood that the information residing in the intelligence services of governments could come to very active use in the international effort to prevent
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

This remains true and we have by now a good deal of experience in the matter.

International organisations need to analyse such information critically and especially benefit when it comes from more than one source.

The intelligence agencies, for their part, must protect their sources and methods.

Those who provide such information must know that it will be kept in strict confidence and be known to very few people.

Unmovic has achieved good working relations with intelligence agencies and the amount of information provided has been gradually increasing.

However, we must recognise that there are limitations and that misinterpretations can occur.

Intelligence information has been useful for Unmovic.

In one case, it led us to a private home where documents mainly relating to laser enrichment of uranium were found.

In other cases, intelligence has led to sites where no proscribed items were found.

Even in such cases, however, inspection of these sites were useful in proving the absence of such items and in some cases the presence of other items - conventional munitions.

It showed that conventional arms are being moved around the country and that movements are not necessarily related to weapons of mass destruction.

The presentation of intelligence information by the US secretary of state suggested that Iraq had prepared for inspections by cleaning up sites and removing evidence of proscribed weapons programmes.

I would like to comment only on one case, which we are familiar with, namely, the trucks identified by analysts as being for chemical decontamination at a munitions depot.

This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected us to inspect.

We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart."

scooby doo,

That's interesting.

I heard the full text on either MSNBC, Fox, or CNN. I don't know which as I just flipped to wherever I found it first.

Uh, just in case you guys didn't notice, nobody cares about a bunch of pro-Iraqi agitators. If I had my way, they'd be gassed in the streets.

According to our local news over the past week, the rallies today (in our area they are not only peace-oriented, but there are also several in support of US Troops) are an annual event. We had the same rally by the same major groups this time last year and the year before etc. They were comparing police presence and preparation to last year's. At least here, it's not something that someone just drummed up because of current events. It's just getting more attention and more support because of current events.

> I just turned into CNN at 4pm ET to check out what
> you are claiming. The first 15 minutes of the broadcast
> were dedicated to the demonstrations. Phrases such
> as "mass demonstrations" and "millions of protestors"
> were used. In addition, pictures from protests all over
> the world were shown.

Well fair enough... honestly, Ive been watching CNN intermittently through out the day and it seems that they increased the amount of coverage they gave as the day progressed but there was clearly a marked difference in the amount of coverage given to these protests by CNN versus the majority of news agencies which covered it almost exclusively.

This was the largest world protest ever that was attended by musicians, actors, politicians and world leaders. I mean this was, pretty much the story of the day if not the week and a world event yet CNN didn't move from regularly scheduled programming which on a sunday, would have been fairly easy to do. They also (from what I saw) failed to show any of those "from the air" shots really giving people an indication of the scale of these protests.

Why are you sooooo worried about the size and scale of the marches ???

Did you go out protesting ???

For the record this was completely sarcasm. See my follow up posts to see my stance on Bush. Or I can just say it again. Idiot.

Proof??

:Kissmy

Didn't you hear Rush? They just hate us because our our "freedom".

Everyone here is entitled to their OWN opinion

but no matter your opinion if you think war is right or wrong!
at the end of the day you aint got a shits chance of stopping this war happening!

Only one person can stop this war and its Saddam Hussein!

Its gonna happen people. wether we like it or not!

Its a sad thing but its harsh reality!

Where does this concept come from?

The flow of oil from Iraq isn't gonna change; It's still going to be sold on the open market just like it is today. If the US over takes Iraq next week the only thing that is going to change is the cost of our gas will go up.

The people of Iraq own that oil, no matter what the US does.

If the US controlled Iraq, they would now have a foot in the "OPEC".

I'm not saying this is the reason for the war, I'm just saying this *would* change some things...

So what you're saying is that if you want cheap oil you have the right to mass bombing and destruct a whole country. With that sick argument, then it would be right if somebody put a nuclear bomb in the middle or Central Park just to lower the price of the Big Mac. Now, what about buying oil to other countries not "in control by a madman" like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Mexico, Norway and other oil producers instead of human holocaust? You call that capitalism, right?

Quote:

"nobody supports us in this war" All except the several european countries that do, as well as isreael, turkey, etc.

There's a big difference between the pressures of USA against governments and what people from the "supporting countries" want. I know for sure that most american governments had some discreet support for USA, but I also know for sure that there were terrible pressures from USA and their slaves from IMF to get this support. Including the definitive cutting of credit for social assistance. That's happening right now in Argentina, and USA menaced to do the same to Venezuela, Chile, Uruguay and Bolivia. Most asian countries are against war. More european countries (including UK PEOPLE not the "cheeky bastard") are against war. Dunno bout Africa but I'm sure it's the same case than South and Central America. So, other than Turkey (possible retaliation victim) Israel (same, plus the representative of USA interestests in Middle East) and a few other countries, believe me that about 90% of people in the world is against war

Quote:

"nobody in the usa wants this war" The only people that dont are the large amount of democrat windbags that hate bush so much they would never support him no matter what. Its political, and if was clinton dropping the bombs they would have no problem. The people of the heartland support it.

Cannot make any apreciation on this cause I don't know

Quote:

"thousands of civillians will be killed" The millitary is pretty careful these days. Its not like we still have ww1 technology or something. These people are starving, and have no freedom whatsoever. To leave them under that rule is inhumane.

Well, this part shows your real colors. You were born in the wrong time and wrong place, you'd have been Hitler's right hand. Or even more. Anyway, as UN (an organism depending of USA wishes) reported, 500,000 CHILDREN died for direct or undirect reasons due to USA attacks. Not even civilians: CHILDREN (of course you won't care since you're way too enlighted to decide who must die "because letting them live is inhumane". Another thing: USA used in Irak previous bombing tactical nuclear weapons which prevent the ground and ambient to be useable for years due to radiation. USA announced last week their intention to use these weapons again. How is it "pretty careful" you oh so clear minded God? And how much of that starving comes from direct action of war?

Quote:

"it will create turmoil in the middle east" So it wont be like the nice happy place it is now? lol.

After all, is someone else lifes, childs, future, freedom, etc

Quote:

"it will cause more terroist attacks here" So we should form our policies to what terrroists that kill innocent women and children want? That is real smart. Even the french arent that cowardly.

Same as above but in your own country. Words can't describe you. But anyway, just in case, let's kill em all, those babies are trained to carry a lethal lollipop

Quote:

You will have to come up with better arguments than these.

Arguments for a braindead? Are you kidding me? :feels-hot

and for the record: I'm convinced Saddam Hussein is just another fascist, but what USA always does is to kill the people but and let the dictator alive and free. People from Irak is not responsible, people from USA isn't either. Common people just want a quiet, safe and happy life, the enjoying on other people's death and suffering makes you a psychopat, not a patriot.

Now, let's say USA starts a war, how many people will die? The perspectives are in the order of hundreds of thousands. Will they finish Saddam? Hell no! USA destroyed Afghanistan, did they catch, kill or stop Bin Laden? Of course not! Now getting a little bit of paranoid... did USA support Irak and sold war technology INCLUDING chemmical weapons? wasn't Bush a commercial partner of Bin Laden?

Get the facts straight you cocksucker redneck, you're very brave sitting behind your computer as other people (including American soldiers) will die

> They just hate us because our our "freedom".

September 11? Many reasons.... as you say, they hate our freedom, they hate our dominance, they hate our foreign policy (particularly US foreign policy), they hate western culture & lifestyle, and they hate the internet because they feel thats its a means by which to proliferate western values and democracy all over the world. They still use it though, hence the fucking millions of uniques from them that never convert.

Still.... in my view, the *main* bottom line is religion. Thats at the heart of it.