Images And Thoughts About September 24 War Protest

In Los Angeles:

Marching up Spring Street





This image is one block from the podium as marchers descend on Temple Street.





next to the podium a few minutes later







.

 

Not much mention of L.A. in the news, I'd say the crowd was 15,000 +



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092400852.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-protest25sep25,0,4892550.story?coll=la-home-headlines

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/24/national/a152129D97.DTL

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1156431

 

'murdering tens of thousands iraqis does not make america safer'

and you don't agree with that? you are one very confused person.

 

Ingodadavita,

Hi. Why do think that these folks are confused; that we are confused ?

David


.

 

Drumminmama,

Yes, in my experience law enforcement can be touchy about photos. The rally was fun, peaceful; lots of folks interacting, talking. Significant numbers of people gathered on the Broadway and, also, the Spring Street parts of the route to not only observe but to cheer us on; was really pleasing to see many hundreds if not a couple thousand, in my "intuitive" estimation, stopping to cheer us on. Do you know the number that was in L.A. ? I think I'm going try to find some official numbers and post them, if you have time and find the official Denver numbers, or others, I like to know them; tally/total them and post.

Peace,

David




.

 

September 24, 2005 : Protests were held in the USA and Europe. Police estimated that about 150,000 people took part in Washington, D.C., 15,000 in Los Angeles, 10,000 in London, 20,000 in San Francisco, and more than 2,000 in San Diego. A counter protest with about 100 people was held at the US Navy Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.[28][29] Organizers claim 100,000 attended the London protest, but police place the figure at 10,000. [30] Further information is at the article: September 24, 2005 anti-war protest


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_protests_against_war_on_Iraq

Also, I have seen estimates for D.C. as high as 300,000; early estimates by D.C. police set the number at greater than 150,000.



.

 

Only a couple hundred pro-Bush supporters showed up at DC for the counter-protest.

.

 

You need to qualify that with an explanation.

Now, i've heard some bigger estimates too (around 300,000) but the police/city always undercounts, but that's the official number (150,000). Which is still a lot, anyways. I wonder how they could have been so off in london, thats a 90,000 people difference.

Either way, the question is, will it do us any good? Does anyone pay attention to these protests? Anyone in the government, that is.

 

No.. whats the point... Do the protestors pay any attention to the goverment ?.

 

The government and the people often don't pay attention to protests initially. For example, in the Vietnam era, there were protests at Kent State back in the early 60s against the war that went quietly unnoticed. Those students probably wondered if they were wasting their time. However, it wasn't until the shootings there in 1970 that the national media and government took real notice. The 68 convention is another example. If enough trouble is stirred up, it becomes a problem for the government and they do pay attention.

.

 

The goverment must of knew of the student feelings at the time.. students protesting against war is almost a given..

I was more thinking what the goverments says or its actions.. What did the goverment do [in response] and what were the students actualy saying ?.. or are we just talking metophoricaly here ?.

 

That was back in the early 60s. Student protests weren't a given back then, although today we might assume that to be the case in our post-60s world.

The students back then were losing their friends in a war that they thought was senseless. Alan Canfora, the person known later as the flag waver in the Kent protests, had a change of attitude regarding Vietnam after one of his friends was killed over there. He was also one of the people shot that day. It does have an effect on you when you lose people you know.

I find it interesting how a small spark in a rural town like Kent can end up as a national event and be pivotal in the way America turned against the Vietnam war.

It's easy to spout off sarcastic remarks accusing people of not doing anything before they lost a loved one, but most of the rest of us would be the same way.

.

 

If you look at all of the major social changes that have occurred in the U.S., most didn't come just by the people asking politely and the government saying 'ok'. There were protests and also unrest involved in many of those changes.

.

 

You have not realy said what they were asking and if they listened to the goverment.. I can as a pascifist [lets say] hold a protest about no wars.. but i assumed anti-war demonstrators have a particular 'beef'.. not that i want a potted history of Vietnam .. but surely these protestors [and the current anti war protestors] have a actual point to their protest. Are they listening if certain of there 'demands' are met ?...or if they are not correct on certain aspects of wht they think [and can say fair enough]... i could not blindly continue if something had been proven to be untrue.. just so i could continue holding a particular placard [because it looks effective or whatever].

This is a two way deal, i think..


I appreciate i probably would alter my thoughts about certain things.. if i lost a loved one.. Do a complete 180 and denounce the goverment for lying etc etc ..that to me seems prety conveniant.. I probably would wish to know the circumstances and see if it could have been avoided.. but no fundementaly i don't think i would alter my thoughts that far.

 

Thats the way all over the world... this is not about social change it is about policy changing regarding a war. That has been deemed illegal ill advised moraly wrong with imperialistic undertones [and countless other things]..
I don't see the anti iraq war protestors as that legitimate to be honest.. I have respect for pascifists but some collude with the anti war lot to attain greater No.s..wich is a bit unfair..

 

Whether it's social change or a change in a policy about Vietnam doesn't matter. Change often comes unexpectedly. It's easy to laugh off a group as illegitimate. But I'm sure that many groups in the past that were trying to implement a social or political change weren't taken seriously initially.

I think there needs to be a realization that the U.S. can't expect itself to be able to re-sculpture other countries in its own image. There really is an attitude problem in DC with the current administration, which tends to think that countries around the world are supposed to embrace an American version of democracy for the sake of making those in DC happy. I find it to be a shallow way of thinking and arrogant.

Putin got annoyed by this attitude and made the remark recently that Russia didn't choose democracy for the sake of pleasing someone waving the flag in another country. He said that Russia chose its own version of democracy for the sake of its own people.

Certainly there were unscrupulous tactics used to try to bring the general public on board for the invasion, such as the references to a giant mushroom cloud rising over the U.S. to conjure up fear in the minds of Americans about what would supposedly happen if they didn't support the invasion. It worked initially when the fears related to 911 were still fresh. But when you use those types of tactics, people aren't going to respect you as legitimate, especially later on when they realize it wasn't true.

.

 

I am not laughing anything off.. i am judging the current protests under its own merits [well trying too].. and maybe trying to see if its a universal constant..

It is a bias to say that America is trying to sculp another emerging democracy in its own image..The response is i imagine 'puppet goverments'. Obviously even if you do, you can be predjudiced... all i am saying is keeping fingers in ears parroting 'no blood for oil' morning noon and night is a bit odd, and i wonder if thats what occures or not.

Can't you also entertain the notion that their is unscrupulous elements within the anti war movement [imho to a greater degree] to conjure up whatever they wish also ?.

You don't find many if any pro war marches going on do you.. i wonder why ?.

So far with a few exeptions all that i have seen is the dismisive nature of anything that may possibly be anything other than american might and dominance and greed.. heavens forbid this could be doing anything good, and america is not anything other than the bad guy..

 

I wasn't referring to you when I said laughing off, although there are many out there who do this. I think no group should be laughed off or easily dismissed. I don't laugh off pro-Bush rallies. The prohibition movement started with some housewives in Kansas. The civil rights movement was launched with the help of a black woman not giving up her seat to a white person. Movements often start out small.

Sure, there are unscrupulous people within protest groups. But I tend to get more disturbed when the President or others in high level positions in government stoop to those tactics.

.

 

I just don't agree with this 'protest' ... i don't see it as starting honestly or fairly and don't see it creating anything but a diversion [with outdated rhetoric] to whats going on all those miles away... Good and bad...

stuborn, moi ? .... never.