London protests, what did they really accomplish?

[JaySherman]

Now that things are winding down, after alot of noise and some pushing and shoving, what did they accomplish?

Cut off access from *. He surely hasn't a clue. And couldn't give a fig anyway.

Poodle obviously doesn't care either.

Same goes for the rest of the neocons and repubs.

Little to no U.S. media coverage.

The rest of the world already knows what the deal is anyway.

So after all that, what ground did our side really gain from this? None IMO. I'm starting to agree the sentiment expressed by some here that's it's time to stop being nice. I almost wish some people had been able to break through and get near *. Be nice if someone had given him a good scare.

But, as I see it, the London marches didn't change a thing in the U.S., and seemingly not much in the U.K. either. The fascists are going to keep goosestepping right along with their agenda, and the American public remains just as oblivious. I know people had to make their voices heard, but that doesn't seem to be enough anymore. I'd love for someone to change my opinion, but I just can't feel very optimistic today.

[arewethereyet]

1. good crowds at the pub

sales are sure to be very good this week

[DulceDecorum]

2. Much MUCH more

than the downing of Saddam's statue ever did.

[JaySherman]

6. Really? How so? Please elaborate. NT

nt

[grytpype]

3. Something great was accomplished.

This State Visit thing was totally poisoned for Bush.

The White House did not control the news coverage. The protests were ALWAYS mentioned in coverage of this visit. The protests may have gotten as much coverage as the visit himself.

This was supposed to be a "victory lap" for Iraq. But instead, it makes Bush look horrible, and the protests are a large part of that.

Remember, this State Visit was for the DOMESTIC audience. And now Bush can't use it without recalling a very embarrassing episode.

So I would say a lot was accomplished.

[cosmicdot]

28. add another asterisk to *'s list of *s ... * UK state visit *

*

when does a "state visit" stop being a "state visit" ... the Parliament speech went bye bye - they put * in Whitehall ... the obligatory parade went bye-bye ...

This is part of history/record:

Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, captured the spirit of the
moment when he told NPR that the Republican National Committee should
foot the bill for Mr. Bush's extraordinary security, the largest
police operation ever in Great Britain. All this, he
harrumphed, "just so George Bush can use a few clips of him and the
queen in his campaign advertisements for re-election next year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/opinion/20DOWD.html

I agree.





http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bshstvisit.htm

~snipplet~

The Queen acts as host to Heads of State when they pay formal visits to Britain. There are usually two incoming State Visits each year. Invitations are sent on the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Enquiries are always made first so that the invitation is not actually sent until it is known that it will be accepted. Although it is technically HM The Queen who invites another Head of State and who hosts the visit, the foreign Head of State being a guest at one of the Royal Palaces, the Queen has no say about who comes, this being a matter for the Government on whose advice she acts. In the 51 years of her reign, HM The Queen has been forced to receive into her home some pretty unsavoury characters in furtherance of the political foreign policy objectives of successive governments.

Each visit lasts from a Tuesday to a Friday (HM doesn't do Mondays), and the visiting Head of State stays either at Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or, occasionally, the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh. During the visit, the Head of State will meet the Prime Minister, government ministers, leaders of the political parties, as well as meeting the heads of diplomatic missions in London, and leaders of commerce and industry. The Head of State will attend a State Banquet in his or her honour, and host a banquet in turn.

One day is spent by the visiting Head of State outside London or Edinburgh, visiting places or organisations of interest to the visitor so that they can see various aspects of British life.

(Less formal visits are termed "private" although they can be very public. Ronald and Nancy Reagan once stayed as guests of HM the Queen at Windsor Castle and it was widely gossiped among the cognoscenti that la belle Nancy had complimented Prince Philip on "your lovely home", but had gone on to ask why it had been built so close to Heathrow Airport.)




It has to be remembered that State Visits are above all ceremonial visits between Heads of State to celebrate the friendship between the peoples of the two states. Where the visiting head of state is a constitutional monarch, or the president of a republic where the presidents are non-political, there is rarely any problem. The convention is that HM the Queen is not involved in politics and therefore any political discussions take place, so to speak, on the margins of the ceremonial.

That is why all previous visits of a US President have taken place on a more informal basis.

There is a UK constitutional convention that heads of state who are considered too unsavoury should not be invited by the Queen. Usually the government is quite good about this, but occasionally it forgets itself: notable previous errors of judgment were the 1971 visit of Emperor Hirohito (deeply offensive to POW's of WW II), the 1973 visit of President Mobutu and the 1978 visit of President Ceausescu.

The reactions of the Queen to the guests the government selects are never made public, but the British public usually lets the government know in no uncertain terms when it has gone beyond the bounds of decency.

Off-hand we can think of no previous occasion when a head of state has been invited while his government was holding a significant number of Her Majesty's subjects without trial

[Maple]

4. Nada

.

[JailBush]

5. I generally agree with the first post, though I don't think this protest

was entirely in vain. It was a big protest on a big day, and it let the world know that Britons aren't all behind Tony Blair. There were also some good photo-ops that can be used to counter Bush's photo-ops.

I definitely agree that the left needs to get over its obsession with being nice. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that protests get too militant, because that can be a very dangerous situation.

But lots of lefties function as thought police who blow a gasket if you merely say something provocative (or post it on this chatboard). These fools are one of the reasons the Democrats have become such a joke. Campaign 2002, Campaign 2003... now they tell us they're finally ready for the Big One. I doubt it.

[Doug Decker]

7. It may be a bit premature to write the history of this event...

since it just occurred. Just my thoughts.

:hi:

[Room101]

9. This......

He had to cancel his Parliament speech because of the Anti- Bush sentiment throughout the country, several MP's said they would have walked out on him. This is a direct result of the same huge anti-bush sentiment expressed through the marches. Contrast that with Blair’s visit where he addressed a joint session of congress.

"Civil disobedience . . . is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war,and millions have been killed because of this obedience . . . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem."
-----Howard Zinn,

[KoKo]

41. The effects of MLK and Ghandi's protests weren't obvious at first, either.

But, eventually they managed to create huge changes in policy. And, coverage of protests are usually downplayed in the beginning. I thought the coverage in GB was pretty good compared to the little coverage the US protests had.

But, I would have liked to see interviews, rather than pictures. That was too much to hope for, though.

[TXvote]

8. The Only Thing A Protest Changes

is YOU.

At least that is how it works when you are trying to reach Biff and Co. You see, this man does not read the papers, nor does he ever watch the news. He does not give one whit of a damn how many people turn out in the streets or what they have to say. And his staff would never suggest he listen or pay attention much less imply he was less than beloved by the public.

So, protesting his corporate sweethearts (who do read the news and hope to stay popular wiht the public) is much more effective. Trust me, Biff listens when his money people are whining about protesters. And the corporate whores sucking up to Biff Co are just as culpable as our poser Pres. As we say down here, you gotta stick em where it really hurts.

I still go to protests, but for a new reason, to recharge my efforts, reconnect with people I love and strangers of similar mind, to express myself creatively through street theatre, and to let others know I will still be counted and I am not afraid to bare my head so the FBI can take pics. The protests serve me well.

Biff is gonna need a different kind of spanking though.....

PS: It meant ALOT to me to see everyone on the streets and Trafalger today. I intentionally looked for coverage, and it was not hard to find. If you were out there, thanks from the bottom of my heart.

[lynndew2]

18. I am Glad you got your

15 Minutes of fame. What good did the protests do? Sad part is that you are right. The protests are just street theatre and nothing more. I am happy you feel fullfilled by finding media. Truth is, protests did not one thing except get some hurt and some jailed. While you were protesting, Bush and Blair made the resolve stronger. I dont begrudge you for what you are trying to do. But I also see that it is not going to have an effect.

[gorviston]

36. Don't be so sure

TXVote, you make a great point, but I would like to suggest that a better way to look at it is that changing yourself is the only thing that you can ever be sure of. Powerful interests ALWAYS want us to think that we are powerless, ineffectual, and alone.

We may never know how affected * is by these protests, but knowing or not is never the point. Certainly his handlers are aware, and his policies are blunted. I would like to point out that this has happened before:

<snip>

One case in point happened in 1969, when Henry Kissinger told the North Vietnamese that Nixon was threatening to escalate the Vietnam war massively, including potential nuclear strikes, unless they capitulated and forced the National Liberation Front in the South to do the same. Nixon was serious. He'd had military advisers prepare detailed plans, including mission folders with photographs of potential nuclear targets. But two weeks before the president's November 1st deadline, there was a nationwide day of protest, the Moratorium, during which millions of people took part in local demonstrations, vigils, church services, petition drives and other forms of protest. The next month came a major march in Washington, D.C of over a half million people. Publicly, Nixon responded to the protests by watching the Washington Redskins football game during the D.C. march and declaring that the marchers weren't affecting his policies in the slightest--sentiments that fed the frustration and demoralization of far too many in the peace movement. Yet privately, Nixon decided the movement had, in his words, so "polarized" American opinion that he couldn't carry out his threat. Participants in the Moratorium had no idea that their efforts may have helped stop a nuclear attack.


</snip>

You can read more here

If I remember correctly, Kissinger was overheard on the famous tapes warning Nixon that they might be dragged bodily out of the White House if he went through with his lunatic plan to nuke the North Vietnamese.

Thanks from me as well.

"Stand Up, Keep Fighting." -- Paul Wellstone

[Postman]

10. For "democracy" to be real, the peoples' voice must count for something...

if it doesn't, then the there are two other alternatives:

1. Do nothing
2. Arm yourself

Outside of public protest, the citizen is left with the obligation of the "vote"

With electronic-paperless ballot voting the potential is there for the "evildoers" to take even THAT option away from us by corrupting the process, which has been suggested by Black Box Voting (Bev Harris)

Living in the United States in 2003 gives me a new perspective on how good people stayed silent in Nazi-Germany.

Not that this is Nazi-Germany but that the country has been hijacked by crazies and is taking us all down the path to destruction.

[Spazito]

11. Kept Bush in his bubble, that's enough for me

and showed the rest of the world how much he is hated. How must it feel to be the most hated man in the world? That USED to be Saddam's place.

[oasis]

12. Brit press got to ask Chimpy why he is hated. That alone made it worth it.

[gristy]

13. What did they "really" accomplish?

You mean, as compared to what we clueless saps "think" they accomplished? Sorry, I've just seen the word "really" in too many thread titles lately... :shrug:

As far as "little to no" media coverage, my search of news.google shows 2,630 news articles:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&scoring=d&edition=us&q=bush+visit+protest+London&btnG=Search+News

Hmmm, what are your definitions of "little" and "no"?

This will be in the papers tomorrow - front and editorial pages. Count on it.

[spanone]

14. They let the world know, bush doesn't give a shit.

God bless the Brits. The world is much hipper than we "americans" give them credit. It was a good voice to speak to the world.

[demsRus]

15. Dig that, spanone

But they ain't paying attention.

[Spazito]

16. The rest of the world is paying a great deal of attention

and that counts.

[demsRus]

19. If that is so, then my hopes and dreams are being answered

But I'm very afraid that your idea of attention and the majority are at odds. I hope I am wrong but each day I am increasingly aware that maybe the flawed humanities have succumbed.

[htuttle]

17. London Called...

...and Miami answered.

[Say_What]

20. Gotta look at the big picture--London is a very important part of the

process. What happened today will give many more the courage they need to step up and be counted.

---

<clips>

Evidence Of Things Unseen: The Rise of a New Movement

...The evidence of things unseen. There is rising a new movement in the world. It is bigger than the movement of the 1960s. Yet it is barely seen by the experts and analysts. They look only at the behavior of institutions and politicians, not the underlying forces that eventually burst into visibility.

The first strand of this new movement is the global opposition to the war in Iraq and to an American empire.

One year ago this month, when over 100,000 demonstrators hit the streets in Washington DC, the New York Times reported that surprisingly few attended the anti-war march, perhaps out of fear of the sniper. National Public Radio repeated the story. How could they not see the 100,000? Apparently because such protests were not supposed to happen anymore. Both the Times and NPR were forced to apologize a few days later and report the huge turnout. Then, in another correction, the Times announced in February that there was a "second superpower" in the world in addition to the White House, which was world public opinion. By then 10 million people were demonstrating globally; two million in Rome, one million in London, 200,000 in Montreal in 20-degrees-below weather – even a brave few in McMurdo Station in Antarctica.

The second strand is the global justice movement, which began with the Zapatistas on the day NAFTA took effect, then surfaced in Seattle in 1999. Those were called isolated events. Then came Genoa, Quebec City, Quito, Cancun, the world social forums in Porto Allegre. Far from isolated events, these were the historic battlegrounds of a new history being born.

http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17000

[BurntIceCubeTray]

21. Advert footage for the 2004 election?

Or some other Rove ideal.

[cliss]

22. It was for them!

The protesters exercised their right to free speech. They showed Blair, the Queen and Britain how they feel about the war.

Just think of the solidarity they had for each other, marching as one mass of humanity, barreling past man-made streets and buildings with their thousands of signs and chants.

The networks can keep it off the news. They can try to squash the voices of dissent all they like. It doesn't matter, because the truth will come out.

[Malva Zebrina]

23. I am not sure that the protests accomplished anything much

but I am sure glad that at least they were there. It makes me feel as if all is not lost, even though the reports say that Bush is not aware and the Queen and Blair are paying no attention and nothing will be changed because of it.

Once mobilized like this, they can be mobilized once more--and if things continue to get worse with the killings , the invasions and the bombings then I would venture that this British protest if able to mobiolize again, will give strength to any American protest that would take to the streets to oust Bush and his insane policies in the future.

It is better than no protest.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

24. Well - it cheered me up a little....

always nice to see Bush get some grief. It must bother him a little...

It's gotta really piss off Poppy and Babs too.

[Sting]

25. What they did was great...

1. The people of Great Britain were exercising their right to free speech. That's something that we cannot do here, unless we're in "first-amendment zones."

2. The people of Great Britain were showing the rest of the world (and us) how evil and malicious Dubya really is. It's amazing how people from a country other than ours protest heavily about that son of a bitch when we see little of that here. Yes, I know people organize, but the numbers aren't as high as they are in London. It'd be nice to see that many people in every state here in the US protest that SOB we're suppost to call president. I'm sure if enough people were to organize in this country, then some heads will turn and we will be heard.

I'm getting off my soapbox now.

[BeyondLeftist]

26. Focus on the COSTS of having the monsters coming to dinner

Today I was at my boy's school for a PTA meeting and the new 29 year old principal who is so Bush-like in her behaviors ("I don't want any parent input...")was quick to remind us all that with the new Gov, yeah the 'outsider' Arnold, that the school district has already put out the word that there would be huge funding cuts to schools and thus students...So quick & easy to spread the word, she was. I educated Miss high-priced spread that as far as I was concerned her major job was to fight for funding from the politicians and to make damn sure our kids are safe while in her charge. It is not from a lack of money! our money! that my kid's 3rd grade class has 32 students instead of the 20 that was mandated a few years ago, a re-election platform of the grey dude. It isn't from a lack of money that there are people living in the streets. Everyone I know is sickened by how much money they pay out to taxes every payday and how much is wasted/stolen by the politicians at every level of our lives and used for their own profit and grandeous lifestyles and exclusionary activities. WTF? These dorks-ALL OF THEM are ALL TAXPAID PUBLIC EMPLOYEES-HOW DARE WE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS INSANITY AND ABUSE OF AUTHORITY?

Bush and crew were here in Riverside with Schwartzenegger 2x in October. His little fund raising exhibitions must cost a fortune-how much does this cost us? How much do we pay for his little insider jaunts to FUNDRAISE? Focus on the locals and the rest will come-protest locally and vocally to the cretins in charge. They hate the publicity and notoriety of being called out in the open. Boycott the Mission Inn, and wherever they stayed in San Bernardino county. Funny that the most monstrous urban fires I've seen occurred right after the monsters had visited these Repug enclaves of Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and San Diego counties. These people have some very very bad energy. The whole area was whacked with bad vibes for days after they left and then the fires started. A whole lot of sage was burned, it smelled so strong of sage, people were dizzy. It took that amount of burnt sage along with gale force Santa Ana winds to cleanse the stench from that 'visit'.

ughh what a nightmare-protest any of 'them' coming to your city and demand to know the costs for their visit. If you do a protest, call up the law enforcement head honcho and ask what their policy is in regards to dealing with citizens utilizing their 1rst amendment. Ask for a roster of the public employees who will be working the protest beat. Ask the head honcho what the procedure is if one of the public employees hurts you. Hold everyone in power over you at taxpayers expense responsible BEFORE they get a chance to exploit their power for the benefit of other taxpaid public employees. Ask what oath they have taken as public servants. Really, it's good to know and fun to parlez with them, reminds them of their working status and their own humanity. It appears to me that Bush isn't too concerned with his image, he doesn't appear to be a man running for the Presidency, in fact he seems to have escalated his behaviors.Alarming

[SoCalDem]

38. Welcome to DU, BeyondLeftist...

I am a Riverside County person too.. I had JURY DUTY the morning that W "visited" Riverside.. Half the onrapms were closed and it took me almost an HOUR to get from Moreno Valley to downtown Riverside..:grr:

I agree.. they brought a lot of bad vibes with them..:(

[Don_G]

27. Eliminated Photo Ops With World Leaders

With the number of protesters in the UK, the only world leader Dimbo could have been photographed with (other than Blair) was in Madame Tussad's Wax Museum.

[rustydog]

29. The world knows England and America dislikes bush to

the level of near-hate.

it serves as a call to all that, to steal a line:
"We will not go quietly into that good night."
Bush and Blair will have to scratch inch by inch for everything they want to accomplish..they will not get it just because of their vaulted positions. Bush knows he is on short notice. That is what the march proved and accomplished.

[Suspicious]

30. The protests accomplished a hell of a lot more

than would have been accomplished if the protesters had stayed home, whining about how nothing was being accomplished.

[Myra]

34. Bingo

...

[Woodstock]

31. It got coverage

pics of it were interspersed with fake pics of the shrub playing with royalty on Yahoo

it was on CSPAN rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/iraq/iraq112003_england.rm

essentially, it was a "the emperor has no clothes" kind of thing - it rained on his parade

[LastKnight]

32. if blair dosent get re-elected

and his replacement doesnt support the war and wants to pull out... guess what, thats our biggest supporter of the 'war on terra-ism' gone, and THAT is what will have the effect. and from what i hear(god knows if its accurate or not) blair isnt gonna be re-elected in all likleyhood

-LK

[Myra]

33. It just blows me away when critics blame protesters

For not immediately saving the world.

Yet those critics never have a viable alternative to suggest.
Never.

For those who so readily dismiss the bravery of protesters,
and - make no mistake - it does take bravery to face down
hundreds of cops in riot gear with guns and tear gas canisters
and horses, I have a question:

*What practical and effective alternative to protesting
would you suggest that you personally would be willing to
participate in?*

People just love to sit around and sigh before and after protests
that they accomplish nothing. I disagree with even that much.
No, a protest doesn't magically reverse the world's problems
in the blink of an eye. Whatta bummer.

But it accomplishes something, including:

-Making people feel much less isolated, showing them that they're
not alone in feeling appalled with the situation.
-Getting publicity. Not as much as Michael Jackson's latest molestation,
gawd knows. But any publicity is better than none.
It does spread the message to some people willing to acknowledge it.
-Giving people a much needed emotional outlet; it's an uplifting
and cathartic experience after years of hell.
-And, most deliciously, making the bad guy go to great lengths
to avoid them - to hide and scuttle thru back doors like the criminals they are.

Here's what the London protest reduced Bush to according to
Graham Joyce in "Cheering Bush down" on Salon:

"Drums and dancing, whistles and songs, foghorns and chanting were
the character of the day in this massive anti-Bush rally...

Ironically it was supposed to be George Bush, Tony Blair and the
queen who were throwing the party.
This was the first "state" visit of an American president
since the end of the First World War.
And what is this "state visit" thing? ...

For George Bush this would normally mean red carpets,
the paralyzing corset of white-tie dinners,
41-gun salutes by guys in furry hats, the gleaming
blond-plumed horse guards, and baroque open
carriages trotted along the Mall as tourists and
royalty junkies wave paper flags. But this year the
carriage has been mothballed and the horses stabled.
George was, instead, helicoptered in the dark
into the grounds of Buckingham Palace in a modified gunship.
A bizarre "welcome" was laid on after breakfast the following
morning, with the president driven 100 yards inside the
Buckingham Palace compound to be greeted by the queen
and her phalanx of retainers in 18th century livery.

This exhibition of depressed panoply took place so that he
wouldn't have to see the tumultuous and ebullient demonstration
about his presence going on outside."

Again:

"...driven 100 yards inside the Buckingham Palace compound..."
to hide from protestors.

Is that not delicious?

In addition:

"With bobbies called in from all over the country to buttress
the Metropolitan police force, the security operation is
estimated to cost 10 million pounds."

I'm pretty sure the English are *pissed* about having to
pay for the security of a war criminal. How many countries
will be willing to pay out the ass to protect this fascist?
Probably few, and fewer all the time.
They saw what happened in London.

The English flipped him a big ol' bird and the whole world saw it.

That's what was accomplished by one day of protesting by our
brave compatriots in England.

But even if none of that was accomplished, speaking strictly
for myself, getting off my ass and screaming at that
dictator as his motorcade rolls by, (and both times
I've had the chance he *did* have to see
and hear the furious mob) allows me to look in the mirror
and sleep at night.

[KG]

39. well said:

'It just blows me away when critics blame protesters for not immediately saving the world.'

[Myra]

40. Thanks KG

It's nice when some people understand.

[moondust]

35. It's a little like advertising.

It's important to keep dissent in the public eye. The undecided especially need to be reminded that truth and justice are out there and a lot of people are still seeking them.

[CWebster]

37. The protests make it quite clear

That are only world ally isn't inclined to roll out the welcome mat for the US president. Bush isn't welcome anywhere.

[Myra]

42. Thought I'd bump this to give protest critics another opportunity...

To be an exception to the rule.

The rule being that (again):

"...those critics never have a viable alternative to suggest.
Never.

For those who so readily dismiss the bravery of protesters,
and - make no mistake - it does take bravery to face down
hundreds of cops in riot gear with guns and tear gas canisters
and horses, I have a question:

*What practical and effective alternative to protesting
would you suggest that you personally would be willing to
participate in?*"

[Deja Q]

43. IT STINKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL! Loved that show, "The Critic"...

Anyway, I'd also like to know what bush's* visit to the UK accomplished, apart from wasting taxpayer money and inciting lots of big protests in the UK that no fair'n'balanced media would ever give a nanosecond's worth of time to.

[Myra]

44. Already answered; *read* the thread. Now *critics* do your part!

They whine about protests and *never* offer alternatives.
This thread is the latest example.

Come on protest critics, at least give it an honest effort:

*What practical and effective alternative to protesting
would you suggest that you personally would be willing to
participate in?*"

[JanMichael]

45. They bring like-minded people together!

Same with the protests here. They create a feeling that there IS hope and you've got people watching your back.

That and the fact is when the shit really does hit the fan these early protests will have created the Human infrastructure to respond to the Fascists.