http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/69672p-64713c.html No War rally on Saturday = 100,000 - 200,000 War rally on Sunday = 700 I especially feel bad for this guy: Of course, the irony in all of this is that if there's another terrorist attack, NYC is the leading city on the list to take it up the ass again for the rest of the country, even though only 0.00087% of the city's population (let alone the surrounding suburbs and whatnot) showed up for this. Compare that to over 10,000 in Atlanta and St. Paul, neither of which wakes up in the morning wondering if today is "the day" that we've all been dreading.
Saw one guy last night on the news who had a "Nuke Saddam" sign. You wonder if any of these protestors thought through the logic of that becoming reality.
Possible, but it is known that majority (latest poll 70%??) of those who support the war dont necessarily take the time out to rally and champion the cause...
Re: Re: 700 in Times Square to support war Oh, the irony! Let's talk about those numbers again -- 700 people in a city of eight million and a metropolitan area of 15 million. Even if I give you that 98% (a far, far higher number than your recommended 70%) of the people who support the war stayed home, this only gives you 35,000 people, or less than one-third of those who showed up on Saturday. Also, there's no explanation as to why NYC would get only 700 while Atlanta and St. Paul get thousands. ... Except if you think that as the American city most personally familiar with the effects of international terrorism, New Yorkers don't see how anything good for NYC can come of this.
CNN showed a clip of one of the pro-war protesters who was saying the anti-war people should be ashamed of their stance because Hussein gave financial support to the 9/11 attackers. You learn something new every day.
Please, obie, give it a rest. I'm sure Oklahoma City didn't "wake up" wondering if today was "the day", either. New York is undeniably a terror target, as is Washington, LA, and - yes - Atlanta. CNN Center is certainly a target, and the CDC, and the NBA All-Star game, and the Women's Final Four. Take off your NYC blinders.
Re: Re: 700 in Times Square to support war With this I agree. Thus the focus needs to continue to be to bring criminals who have committed crimes to justice, not this "Minority Report" pre-crime action (well, at least "pre-crime" against us; hell we helped Saddam commit "regular" crime...)
Re: Re: Re: 700 in Times Square to support war I just think that especially since the war is under way, and we all knew we were going to war, rallying for a war became a moot point.. Usually protesting comes about to fight something that is about to begin.. Many people can feel strongly about an issue and not have to run around with signs to convey their message.. I will agree that I am surprised about the turnout down south..
Re: Re: Re: 700 in Times Square to support war I totally agree with this. The folks in NYC and DC see this war for what it will be...an excuse for more terrorist action.
"Give it a rest"? When have I ever brought this issue up here, or anywhere where you've been listening? Yes, I'm sure Atlanta is quaking over the Women's Final Four coming to town. Will there be a mass exodus on the interstates that weekend? While every city has potential targets of some sort, the biggest support for this war is coming not from the cities but from the suburbs and rural areas, which have been subject to the fewest incursions into daily life. I work in a building that has reservists stationed outside of it, holding machine guns. There are full-time bomb-sniffing dogs stationed to my elevator bank. Do you think the people of Marietta see the same thing?
And that matters, because...? If you're too dumb to realize that terrorists are willing to strike at any target, then I can't help you. Yes, even the Women's Final Four has had to greatly steup-up security. We had the men's Final Four last year. Is that good enough for you? And if you think that there is some correlation between "incursions into daily life" and support for the war, then I've been giving you way too much credit. And that's the reason you're against war with Iraq? Because that's what you're implying with this inane thread. I can't speak for the "people of Marietta", because I live and work in the city. All of my incoming work mail is opened and screened for anthrax at a separate facility. My briefcase is searched every time I go into work. I know about "incursions". And I understand them. Is Hoboken like the Marietta of NYC?
I work in the same kind of building, with Saudi Airlines offices on the floor above us; I think it can be said, however, that the "9/11 effect" reached everyone where they are, particularly with the local news' penchant for taking everything that happens everywhere else and generating those "What if it happened HERE?!?" pieces... In addition, its entirely feasible that "terror cells" may seek out multiple B-cities next time, given the relative resources any single A-city can bring to prevention efforts...
The anti-war folks are well prepared. It would not be too crazy to think that the majority of grassroots connections, email address and websites that now work against the war are the same or related to the various groups established to protest the WTO, globalization, and the Save the Whales campaigns. Thus, they had an advantage to move hundreds of people on such short notice.
If you cannot realize the terrorist target selection committee of AQ would probably pass on the women's final four, I can't help you, either. I'm against this war because I don't think Saddam is a threat to America, I don't believe that the Wolfowitz Doctrine is good foreign policy, and I do believe that we are setting very dangerous precendents with nearly unilateral pre-emptive invasions against any sovereign country, regardless of how bad their leader is. Generally, I think that NYC people, or people in cities in general, are less likely to support a war because (among a multitude of reasons) they don't want to give AQ or anyone else recruiting material. If you ask people "would you support this war if it meant that your town would be subject to a terrorist attack", support would drop, would it not? That's how people feel here, that US aggression is leading to a higher probability of another attack. Why do you think that they only got 700 people to a Times Square rally? Fewer McMansions and chain restaurants. And there's nowhere to park your SUV. Otherwise, I'm sure it's exactly the same.
Funny you should mention that, but last week one pissed all over his handler in the lobby kinda out of nowhere. I'm sure Lehman Brothers will dock his pay over that one.
The overwhelming majority of Americans supported the war in Afghanistan. Still we saw more people protest against the war than for it. Protesting has little impact on government policy. 200,000 people protesting is a very small percentage of the population. Most people support the war but do so without protesting. If 90% of Americans opposed the war as in France, then that may change policy. However, protesting will have minimal impact.
I'm well aware of why you oppose this war. Which is why this thread struck me as particularly spurious, coming from you. People in cities tend to be more liberal. Even here. And there isn't a great deal of liberal support for the war, regardless of whether or not they think they are in a "target" city. You're clouding the issue. I think DoctorJones opposition to this war is just as legitimate as yours, even though he lives far away from the "intellectual capital" that is NYC. Because they didn't have Clear Channel promoting it for them, as they did in Atlanta? I'm guessing, because I don't know. But the numbers of the Atlanta rally were primarily due to the relentless promotion of some loudmouth radio talk-show hosts.
Re: Re: Re: 700 in Times Square to support war You don't think the CDC and the CNN Center are potential targets? OK dude.
First off, you don't usually see protests in favor of the status quo. If there were no anti-war protests, there would be no pro-war protests either, despite the fact that 70+% of Americans support the war. Second, how many people in the anti-war protest were actually from New York? I'd say half, at most--I know several people from Boston who went to it, and I'm hardly active in the anti-war movement. A LOT of people traveled for that one. By contrast, I bet nearly all of the people at the pro-war protest were New Yorkers, seeing as how it wasn't really announced at all ahead of time. Along these lines, the anti-war protest organizers do a much better job of publicizing than do the pro-war organizers. It's impossible to walk across BC's campus without seeing a flyer for an anti-war demonstration--this despite the fact that BC is a relatively politically apathetic campus, and every attempt at an anti-war rally here draws 50 people tops. At Harvard there's even more anti-war flyers. By contrast, I've never, not once, seen anything promoting a pro-war rally anywhere. Third, Atlanta is one of four major US cities I can think of that have suffered a terrorist attack (along with NYC, DC, and OKC). An attack on the CDC headquarters would be devastating--especially combined with a bio weapons attack anywhere in the country. Alex
But you are apparently saying that polls do. And what do you know, what do we ALL know, about polling?