Just saw yours, beagle. I was just being cheeky with you. Please accept my thanks for posting all the informative links. 
On this link, United for Peace definitely claims to have sought the permit for the New York protest.
More interestingly, here is a partial list of speakers/performers:
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Harry Belafonte
Danny Glover
Julian Bond
Phyllis Bennis
Susan Sarandon
Pete Seeger
Rosie Perez
Angela Y. Davis
Dennis Rivera
Ruth Messinger
Welfare Poets
Kim Gandy
Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Poets from Def Poetry Jam
And here, which Apos might find interesting if he’s still reading, is a link to the complete list of speakers:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=799
Well, I’m not. Groups with lousy politics like ANSWER have just as much right to organize and join protests against the war as anyone else does. And it certainly doesn’t seem to have kept people away, either. Maybe it’s because there are more reasons to oppose the war than just apologetics for Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Saddam Hussein.
By the way, Sam, would you oppose the war if ANSWER weren’t involved in the movement at all, or are you just talking smack because the Stalinists are such an easy target?
Why should I listen to any of these people with the exception perhaps of Desmond Tutu? Because they happen to be famous? What kind of authority do movie stars like Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover have regarding WMD and issues of non-compliance? I wrote a paper in high school about my dislike for Thoreau’s Walden, does that make me qualified to discuss the entire transcendentalist literary movement?
Well since you were too, um, busy to check the link and see what you were on about I’ll give you a hand:
Julian Bond is the Chair of the NAACP. Bennis is a Middle East expert at the Institute for Policy Studies. Davis is a History professor at UC, Santa Cruz. Rivera represents the International Union for service employees–presumably speaking for organized labor. Ruth Messinger (who may also be a local politician, but don’t quote me on that) is representing a group called the American Jewish World Service. Gandy represents N.O.W. Dennis Kucinich is a US Congressman. Presumably since you once wrote a paper on Thoreau in high school you know why people listen to poetry. Belafonte, Glover, Seeger, Perez and Sarandon are specifically listed as performers rather than speakers, so presumably they’re there to entertain people who have volunteered to stand for hours in the freezing cold for a cause they believe in.
If it’s any consolation, I’d be delighted to know your views on the transcendentalist literary movement, should the occasion ever arise. Only I hope you put more effort into researching your paper on Thoreau than you did into checking some basic facts before hitting “submit.”
That many people oppose the war should not deter the administration from acting in the best interests provided by their information.
On the other hand, the fact that, in a situation (the War on Terror) that requires as much good work in propaganda and getting support among a wide variety of peoples for many years as it does good military effort to destroy targets, demonstrations of this size should be recognized by the administration that they have failed rather horribly in persuading both allies and even their own citizens that they actually have justification.
It is not enough to say that Hussein is a monster in his own country–the same can be said of several of our current (and many of our past) allies.
It is not enough to say that he has violated resolutions or agreements or that he possesses weapons of mass destruction–the same can be said of many of our allies or trading partners.
There needs to be a clear link between Iraq and actual terrorist organizations that present a current threat. (And Hussein’s propaganda ploy of giving money to the families of suicide bombers simply does not cut it as material support for terrorism.)
There needs to be a clear presentation that Hussein will violate every principle that he has followed over the last 30 years and will initiate an action that will bring down doom on his head.
Perhaps this information is out there. Perhaps the administration possesses it. If so, they have done the worst job in history of conveying that information.
Calls to “trust them, they know more than you” are going to fall on rocky soil for someone who lived through the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the “military” airfield on Grenada, the Somozan National Guard “Freedom fighters,” and the Panama debacle, and has read enough history to “remember the Maine” as well as “American blood has been spilled upon the American territory,” at Rancho de Carricitos.
If they need to do what they are going to do without telling us the truth, that is their responsibility. However, until they provide actual evidence of a need to go to war, they are legitimately suspect among those who have found their “evidence” unpersuasive. If, having chosen to act, they later provide the information that justified it, they will be vindicated. If they never provide that information, they stand condemned. It’s their choice.
People have the right to demonstrate and I have my right to form my own opinion.
[ul] [sup]Like two ships passing at night.[/sup][/ul]
[slight nitpick that has very little to do with politics]
I’m not sure your US-UK equivalency figures here are really valid. Sure, 1-2 million people constitutes roughly 1/60 to 1/30 of the UK population, and 6-12 million constitutes roughly 1/60 to 1/30 of the US population (actually, 5-10 million would be more accurate).
But, in comparing the rally in London to a rally of 6-12 million in NY, you have to take into account the fact that a far greater percentage of Britain’s population is within a day’s travel of London than is the case with New York in the US. This is a simple matter of geography. Someone who lives in Florida or Louisiana or Oregon or Missouri would need to make quite an effort to go to NY for a rally. On the other hand, it’s easier for people from Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cornwall, Wales, and even Cumbria, Tyneside, and Scotland to get to London because of the shorter distances involved.
[/slight nitpick]
(and apologies to the Welsh and the Scots for lumping your countries in with a bunch of English counties :))
Again, why should I listen to him? 
I’ll admit your point about the others.
Well it is weird to me that one can catch so much flak for going to a peace protest.
I have a friend attacking me about it, like to a degree that I am thinking of just cutting him out of my life completely.
Apos I was at the 53rd street and second avenue intersection where and when the barrier was broken. I was right up against the barrier in fact. The intersection was packed as tightly as a rock concert WHEN the police in their infinite wisdom decided to ride their horses into it and drive SWAT vans in. At such a point I was pressed up against the barrier by a sea of people, I was lifted off the ground completely, looking into the face of one of the cops trying to keep the barrier from breaking. It ultimately broke. I went over, and a bunch of people went down, a few people got hurt.
A side effect of this was that I was able to get right up to the front and watch the speakers. I could actually hear them, so I doubt you saw more on MNN than I heard.
Erek
Hope I didn’t sound like I wanted to trivialize it. Just some perspective. I mean if 50,000 whahoo’s can make a footy match and 100,000 turn out for a protest, I would not be so impressed. 1 out of every 60 (30) people in the entire country turned out is staggeringly impressive.
I don’t really see that it matters who organises the rallies - the point is that they attracted overwhelming public support.
I feel that Tony Blair would be best advised to temper his support for the war until he can produce some actual evidence that Iraq is a threat to Europe.
Bateman wrote:
Overwhelming? 
I’ll repeat my question from page 1 (as yet unanswered). What percentage of the population did the protestors represent? Did it register as high as a half of one percent?
Your question has been answered, between 1 in 30 and 1 in 60 of the entire poupulation, depending on whether 1 mill or 2 mill is the correct figure) of the population of the UK (not counting demo’s elsewhere at the same time.) I’m sure you can do the math yourself.
London police estimates are 500,000-750,000.
No - they estimated 750,000 and that ignored those who did not march from the 2 assembly points but went to Hyde Park direct. and the UK police habitually underestimate demo’s. As the Mayor of London said on a TV interview, by mid afternoon while the march was hours from completion, they told him 750000 to 1 million, and as he remarked, you then have to multiply it by 2 to get to the correct figure.
No, no, no. What about the populations of Russia and the United States? It was a “worldwide” protest, wasn’t it?
(I’ll allow counting Iraq at 100%. After all, not saying what you’re told to say there can get you killed and your family raped.)
Protester arithmatic at its finest. Of course it is in the best interests of protest organizers to have the highest number possible, so I am leary of multiplying anything by two.
Here is an estimate of march numbers elsewhere than the UK.
Nowhere except Spain comes close to Britain in terms of a percentage of the population. Even if the 0.75M is correct and is not an underestimate, this is still the biggest protest ever in the UK.
Whether such will be enough to prevent the US and its allies from acting without explicit UN consent remains to be seen. An increase in aid to countries such as Angola and Cameroon in order to cajole them into voting for war (as present members of the UNSC) would at least partially authenticate military action in the eyes of most of these protestors.
I would suggest a valid comparison would be for a worldwide “Start The War” march to be held in a fortnight’s time and see how many it turns out.
The protester arithmetic is kinda irrelevant in this case. In Australia, and I believe also in the U.K., the protester turn out was the largest ever, for anything, and by a big margin. It doesn’t really matter whether it was twice as big or a hundred times as big. What you have is protesters in unprecedented numbers.