'LARGEST' ANTI-WAR PROTESTS IN HISTORY OF EUROPE

Washington Post ^ | February 15, 2003 | Robert Barr

[notyourregularhandle]

Millions of protesters - many of them marching in the capitals of America's traditional allies - demonstrated Saturday against U.S. plans to attack Iraq.

In a global outpouring of anti-war sentiment, Rome claimed the biggest turnout - 1 million according to police, while organizers claimed three times that figure.

In London, at least 750,000 people joined in the city's biggest demonstration ever, police said. Berlin had up to half a million on the streets, and Paris was estimated to have had up to 100,000.

[Grand Old Partisan]

anti-southern demeanor??

[Grand Old Partisan]

True, the communists confiscated guns when they took power, but over the decades millions of guns slipped back into private hands.

[wardaddy]

I'm not sure I agree with that and I do know for a fact that as I said authoritarians do indeed confiscate firearms almost right out of the gate in the modern era and I can back that up....as I already have to some degree with that first link.

I have clashed swords with you on WBTS threads where you much like Walt prefer to label all Southerners like me as Neo-Confederates because we resist PC assaults on our heritage.

If you wish to believe that our right to keep and bear arms is not grounded in the need to resist tyranny then that is your perspective. In my view, that along with self defense is precisely why our founders placed the second amendment there in the first place.....and Thank G-d for their foresight.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Confederate rebels, every one a Democrat BTW, did not use many privately-owned guns. Most of the guns they used to kill 400,00 U.S. troops were imported from England.

Also, the first gun control laws in the United States were passed in late 1865 by the neo-Confederate Democrats of the South to prevent blacks from owning guns. The Republican Reconstruction governments which displaced them in 1867 immediately abolished these laws.

[wardaddy]

Let's save that argument for another thread. We have crossthreaded beyond propriety and I'm as much or more at fault than you.

Regards.

[Dec31,1999]

This has been allowed to drag on too long. If Dubya does not act, and act soon, he is done for as a viable polititical entity. Making this a UN problem was a mistake and we should never make it again --when our vital interest is at stake we need only those allies who are willing to face the music of international opiinion.

I agree. Iraq should have been taken care of last July. Now I fear it may be too late as it's perilous to fight world opinion dominated by a mass media which refuses to give equal time to dissenters, which may mean that the opposition has actually already won and that we will have to get used to living in fear of further terrorism indefinitely. Or worse yet, the jihaddis will succeed in poisoning the entire world with bioweapons.

We are going to lose because our citizens, sheeple, think that the terrorists are doing their thing because of injustices committed by the West and America.

What the sheeple don't realize is that the Islamo-fundies want us dead or converted at ANY cost, regardless of political affliation, race or citizenship.

[Dec31,1999]

Oh! Sorry for posting on topic! ;)

[freepersup]

LARGEST GATHERING OF APPEASERS OF TERRORISM IN HISTORY OF EUROPE

yawn...
-that's what Europeans do-
stretching muscles...
followed by more yawning...

[mecraig38]

Jeff. There are only three countries against this war. The last time I checked, there were more than three countries in this world. Let me see. There's Italy, Israel, England.. Hey. Wait a minute. These are countries that are coming aboard with us.
By the way, yes, France and Germany are screwed up.

[eyespysomething]

This is what Tony Blair said today in his speech at a conference of his ruling Labour party in Glasgow, Scotland:


"If there are 500,000 on that march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for.

"If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started."

That's the sort of stuff which needs to be said.

[Hostage]

There are quite a few people there, but nowhere near 200,000.

I was thinking the same question. I wondered how the news service could put up such a picture and then caption it with "hundreds of thousands".

If the picture is divided into 16 x 24 = 384 blocks and a density of 20 people are assigned to each block, then there are about 7680 people.

This estimate does not account for sparse areas in the photo so it is a conservative estimate. Even if the density estimate is doubled or tripled, the number of people in the photo is less than 25k.

So I believe you are right.

[SuziQ]

Does it make you wonder who PAID for all this? It sure makes ME wonder! Such world wide coordination sure smacks of 'Global Peace' organizations kind of like those underwritten by the Soviets in the 1980s. May be the same groups with the same agenda (anti-American), but it looks like they have a new sponsor.

[neutrino]

Wow, it looks like the WORLD is speaking...republican or no republican America must listen...

No, a small vocal minority of idiots is yowling. There is an appropriate response to these fools...posting guidelines preclude an explicit description of same. However, the Romans referred to the gesture with the term "The impudent digit."

[SuziQ]

but we can't go it alone like we want to.

Have you been listening to the news lately? We won't be going it alone. We won't even be going in with just one or two countries supporting us. At last count, there were at least 20 countries who were willing to support us. The fact that France,Germany, and Russia are not among those doesn't bother me in the least.

I don't believe Bush ever intended to do it with just the U.S. Military, but the media started this 'cowboy' mantra, and have continued beating that drum in order to confuse the American people. They don't seem to have succeeded, according to the latest poll numbers.

[Hostage]

See recent posts concerning the financial connection between Iraq and U.N.

To sum it up, the post Persian Gulf War agreement allowed Iraq to sell oil for food, medicine and also to pay for war reparations and U.N. involvement. The U.N. has received tens of billions in Iraqi oil revenues. The U.N. is also full of globalists and one-worlders who are committed to socialism and green party politics. The one-worlders in the U.N. fund through "grants" many organizations that they represent. These grants are really kickbacks. There are also many individuals that are supported by the one-worlders in the U.N. (e.g. Gorbachev, Mandela, et. al).

And remember this U.N. activity is ultimately funded by Iraqi oil.

[chimera]

And send a bill to the UN for all 150,000 of our armed "inspectors" for reimbursement at same level of pay as current inspectors are getting. Problem solved, costs covered.

Good idea. It may solve more than one problem, because when the U.N. doesn't pay up, attach a lien against "their" property and foreclose on it. Then kick those bloodsuckers out and turn over some prime Manhatten real estate to private development. Trump could probably do a good condo conversion on their headquarters building, and their assembly hall would make a decent multiscreen movie theater. Think the esteemed "World Court" could handle a monetary judgement case?

[oregon conservative]

should read that our enemy is Iraq and in some cases the radicals within Islam, not all of Islam.