community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
April Fools Day Pro-War Rally @ The Federal Building
by ,
Friday, Mar. 28, 2003 at 11:41 PM
Anyone else think it might be a little humorous to hold a mock pro-war rally @ the federal building on april fool's day
Anyone else think it might be a little humorous to hold a mock pro-war rally @ the federal building on april fool's day?
signs to include
Blood For Oil
War for Peace
Unilateralism Now!!!
Signs for April Fools Day
by Derrick
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 10:26 AM
Here are some suggestions for April 1 signs:
More Bombs, More Arrests--NOW
More Pay for Riot Police
We love the FBI
Also, I suggest that we wear sutis and ties for this demonstration.
Great idea
by Nick
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 12:20 PM
pnk6@pitt.edu
That's a great idea. The peace movement could use some humor these days.
More ideas for slogans:
- "Freedom for the Surviving Iraqi People"
- "My Unelected Extremist Can Beat-up Your Unelected Extremist"
Awesome!
by Sam
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 12:23 PM
I am *so* there...
More signs:
"Support Our Troops -- Kill Them!"
"Nuke the Middle East"
Suits and ties would be a could idea, as someone mentioned. Alternatively, some people could dress like fratboys, others as yuppies.
also
by Nick
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 12:38 PM
We should all wear those little American flag pins that every douche bag pollitician has worn during press conferences and the like since 9-11
my favorite
by chris
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 2:08 PM
my personal favorite slogan is one I saw on this red neck's t-shirt after 9/11 "Kill em all, let God sort em out."
we MUST make this 4/1 demo happen!
by david
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 3:06 PM
...and it should be nationally coordinated. I'm going to send unitedforpeace.org a link to this discussion.
more signs/chants:
? I [heart] SUVs [cmu frat boy sign at 3/16]
? give war a chance [sign in NY pro-war rally]
? money for war, not health care
? money for war, not for education
? bomb iraq into the stone age
? deport all muslims
? go suicide-bomb yourself [now appearing everywhere]
? it's our oil, we want it back
www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/dmeieran/weblog/peaceblog.html
Time?
by Rovin' Workman
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 3:24 PM
Do we have a general time frame involved for 4/1 events? I suggest something after standard work hours, but not too late after that.
5:00 PM
by ,
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 4:31 PM
how about between 5:00 and 6:30 PM?
5:00 PM
by ,
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 4:31 PM
how about between 5:00 and 6:30 PM?
hahaha
by Evan N
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 4:50 PM
it strikes me as sad that those signs such as "unilateralism now" and "deport all muslims" could be taken seriously by alot of people. just becaus those arguments are actually out there, people actually believe that shit.
Taken Seriously
by Sam
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 5:07 PM
I can almost guarantee some people actually *will* take it seriously and honk their support.
Avoid Misunderstandings!
by rwh
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 5:48 PM
I LOVE this idea, but I also agree that there is some danger that this rally could be misinterpreted as a serious pro-war rally. How can we be (more) certain to avoid this? Maybe more of those white masks that folks war during the Convergence to go with our business suits? Other ideas? The last thing I'd want would be to be taken seriously by passers-by....
other ideas for signs, chants
by Saleh
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 6:00 PM
info@zi-activism.net
"Remember the Maine - attack Iraq"
"Remember Dec. 7 - attack Iraq"
Justice and Liberty for All Who Look Like Bush
WMD: Buy American (problematic)
Support the troops: war = job security
chants:
France France go to hell
World War III is really swell
...
Idea
by Rovin' Workman
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 6:57 PM
I think to make sure we are not misunderstood by most people, we should make the signs and chants as absurd as possible. I agree about the Muslims sign proposal being problematic. Also, even better if the signs highlight inequities. Such as, "More Bombs, Less Free Speech."
Something like Kill, kill, kill...its the American way! might work, too. "Bombs, Detainment, and Freedom Fries?"
my idea
by Evan N
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 9:18 PM
We can all show up with bizarre signs and shit, but i think standing up on that wall on the corner should be a BIGG LONG BANNER saying "APRIL FOOLS!!!" with peace signs all over it.
then underneath that banner can be our out-there and ludicris statements.
by the way: is this thing on for real?
if this activity is actually taking place and we can get a decent amount of people to show lets go for it
go for irony but not excessive hyperbole
by david
Saturday, Mar. 29, 2003 at 10:03 PM
dmeieran@andrew.cmu.edu
I disagree with view that we should avoid "real" pro-war slogans. Since education (as opposed to disruption) is the implicit goal for a mock pro-war rally, irony will be more effective than over-top-hyperbole. Some hyperbole is good; too much, however, and we are easily dismissed.
For me, what makes the mock pro-war rally attractive is precisely the idea of appropriating actual pro-war slogans. When we flaunt the pro-war vocabulary in its entirety, we have an opportunity to expose the pro-war position for what it really is: a haphazard collection of contradictory, unsubstantiated claims that lack moral credibility. The creative juxtaposition of such phrases as "unilateralism now," "deport all muslims," "peace through war," "I [heart] SUVs," "we're right, the whole world is wrong" is sure to grab the media's attention and promote critical inquiry among potential peace supporters.
The fear that we might be mistaken for pro-war supporters is misplaced. There are all sorts of ways to frame this action as a peace protest, some of which have already been suggested:
Moreover, unless we all wear business suits (which is impractical since many protesters, myself included, simply don't have any), we won't look like pro-war supporters.
About ten years ago I participated in a similar mock rally in Portland, OR, protesting Ballot Measure 9, an antigay ballot initiative sponsored by the religious right. (Incidentally, one interesting thing we did was to collect some of the actual signs used by the BM9 advocates, which we marked up with subtle comments.) It was among the more effective and more widely televised demonstrations.
To sum up: let's focus on the incoherence of the pro-war position not by wearing their clothing but by creatively flaunting their vocabulary.
www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/dmeieran/weblog/peaceblog.html
yesterday
by jane
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 9:15 AM
did anyone see the real pro - war rallies yesterday 3/29(there were three at diffrent courthouses in neighboring areas). if anyone did they could have a good reference point on what a real pro - war rally is like so you all wont be mistaken as such.
.
by .
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 9:21 AM
from 'head of state'
'god bless america - and no place else'
More Signs
by Prodigal Yunzer
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 1:46 PM
How about "THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST ORGANIZATION FOR PEACE needs a ride home"
and "I AM AGAINST THIS WAR AND I VOTE. NO, WAIT, I DON"T"
definitely there
by angry white male
Sunday, Mar. 30, 2003 at 11:18 PM
i am definitely there, with all of these tensions this event could prove very positive for the movement... there was a sign that those frat boys had up "nuke paris" that was incredibly ridiculous. definite nod to the idea of a big "april fool's day sign" - is someone stepping forward for that one?
where: federal building???
time: 5:00 ???
"In Bush we trust"
Funny pro-war pics
by Metal Machine
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 4:15 AM
self@jcom.home.ne.jp
Does anyone have humorous pics of the PRO-WAR demos? Here's one of some moran, oh sorry, make that MORON. Please e-mail the pics to me at self@jcom.home.ne.jp I'm going to keep a log of them.
You ignorant people
by Tom Hanks
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 8:55 AM
Perhaps a little history lesson is in store for the motley lot of you - get a life or get out of this country. You really don't deserve to be living in America. Try it over in Iraq.
The League of Nations (established after WWI to prevent wars) failed to stop Mussolini's Italy from invading and conquering Ethiopia. It failed to stop Japan from invading and conquering Manchuria and much of China. Their committees wrung their hands spoke in platitudes but did absolutely nothing to stop war.
At France's coaxing Britain's prime minister Nevil Chamberlain met with Adolph Hitler in Munich and surrendered the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in the interest of "peace in our time." The French and British watched as Germany took Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. They all had committee meetings and wrung their hands and talked of peace.
World War II erupted when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Britain had a mutual defense treaty with Poland so they couldn't escape. They declared war on Germany. Germany had a mutual defense treaty with Japan so Japan declared war on Britain. France wet their pants and surrendered to Germany as fast as they could and gleefully shipped all the Jews they could find to death camps in Germany to prove to Adolph that they really were on the side of Germany.
Japan attacked the United States and, because of Japan's mutual defense treaty with Germany, Germany declared war on the United States.
Up until December 7th and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, a large number of our people were wringing their hands and saying, "Appease Hitler. He is really a good guy who just needed a little more land for his expanding population. The dear man just wants peace. And World War II was in full swing leaving better than 50,000,000 people dead including about 450,000 American soldiers and sailors.
Three cheers for the League of Nations!
After World War II it was decided to do the whole thing all over again.
This time we would call it the United Nations and we will have committee meetings and hand wringing parties and make sure peace prevails throughout the
land.
While that august body wrung hands the Soviet Union split Germany, invaded Poland and Yugoslavia, Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria along with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The peaceful world saw Korea with 37,000 American soldiers killed, over 1,000,000 South Korean soldiers and civilians killed and the
country nearly destroyed.
Since then we have had over 50,000 American soldiers killed in Vietnam and have fought wars in Somalia, Herzegovina, Panama, Granada, plus the Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
We should have gone into Baghdad and taken out that evil regime then but the United Nations would have no part of that. All they would allow was for us to chase the Iraqis out of Kuwait, then peace would prevail.
Now, here we are with Saddam violating all 17 United Nations resolutions while he has massed poison gas and bio weapons.
He is frantically trying to develop a nuke and his buddy, Kim Jong-Il of North Korea may give him a few. (It was the United Nations who prevented us from taking North Korea when the war was hot and we had the means to do it.)
Peace!!!!!!!! Sure.
France is wetting their collective pants in fear that the United States will take Saddam out and along with him, France's 60 billion dollar contracts with Iraq. Russia hedges because Iraq owes them 6 billion dollars that they sorely need.
In answer to your protests....... hell yes we should go to war with Iraq. We should have done it six months ago. We should also get out of the United Nations. Can you believe that the United Nations has appointed Iraq and Syria to head up the United Nations Disarmament
Committee? Can you believe they have appointed Libya to head up the Human Rights Committee?
All three of these countries are on the UN List of Terrorist States.............Absolutely unbelievable. Just don't get me going. Throughout recorded history the only time peace has prevailed is when the good guys have militarily whipped the bad guys. Who are our best friends in the world? Japan because we whipped them. Germany because we whipped them. Italy because we whipped them. Britain because we whipped them.
This is one opinion, on the War but this is the eyes, ears and heart of an American Veteran.
You obviously did not lose a loved on 9/11 nor do you care about those who did.
UN
by Theo
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 9:31 AM
TheoK444@aol.com
Israel is also violating several UN resolutions concerning their occupation of Palestinian territories. Although they don't admit it, they also have weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons. I agree with your logic. Let's take out Israel.
again
by jwg
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 9:42 AM
"Can you believe that the United Nations has appointed Iraq and Syria to head up the United Nations Disarmament
Committee? Can you believe they have appointed Libya to head up the Human Rights Committee?"
these statements simply aren't true, the head of the Human rights comittee is from Brazil, the Head of disarmament is from Sri Lanka
and we're the "idiots"?
seriously
by jwg
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 9:52 AM
it doesn't take too long to check facts
High Comissioner for Human Rights (UN)
http://193.194.138.190/html/hchr/cv.htm
The Department for Disarmament Affairs is headed by Under-Secretary-General Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka.
http://disarmament.un.org/dda-jdbio.htm
MORE HISTORY FOR YOU
by P.H. Reeisreal
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 10:19 AM
Mourning the Bomb
Why Israel's fallen astronaut was a hero to America.
Sunday, February 2, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
(Editor's note: This editorial appeared in The Wall Street Journal, June 10, 1981, three days after the Israeli air force destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. One of the F-16 pilots who carried out the mission was Ilan Ramon. Col. Ramon was aboard the space shuttle Columbia; he died yesterday at 48.)
An atom bomb for Iraq, we have learned in the last 24 hours, has become the latest great cause c�l�bre of world opiniondom. Various governments, including our own, and a lot of pundits have been busily condemning Israel's raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor. Our own reaction is that it's nice to know that in Israel we have at least one nation left that still lives in the world of reality.
What is going on here: Iraq, awash in cheap crude oil, wants a big nuclear reactor. It rebuffs French suggestions to give up the original design and substitute one that does not need weapons-grade uranium. It has been buying raw uranium, which is not suitable for use in reactors, but dandy if you want to use the reactor to breed plutonium for weapons. Faced with this evidence, the conclusion of world opinion has been--everything's OK, Iraq has signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
This kind of silliness has a mysterious power to blind most who man foreign ministries, think tanks and editorial sanctums. Of course Iraq was building a bomb. Of course its intended target was Israel. Of course, given the Iraqi reputation for political nuttiness reaffirmed again in its starting a war with Iran, its atom bomb would also have been a danger to all its neighbors. We all ought to get together and send the Israelis a vote of thanks.
Israel, which is assumed to have its own atom bomb but not to have conducted a test explosion, was not acting out of some abstract concern with nonproliferation. It was pursuing its own national interest, and in its timing also no doubt Prime Minister Begin's political interest in the impending elections. Its pre-emptive strike was strong medicine.
This would not have been necessary, though, if the reality that marked the Israeli decision had been present in the United States' nonproliferation policy this last decade or so. These efforts more or less went out the window when the U.S. refused to take sanctions against India's "peaceful nuclear device," exploded in violation of an agreement with the U.S. After this show of irresolution, the U.S. could hardly expect to persuade, say, the French to pass up sales to Iraq. Soon the whole nonproliferation question was lost in the fog of international negotiations.
To give the worriers about Israel their due, there is always reason to be concerned that any military act could prove to be the spark in the tinderbox of the Middle East. But we have been under the impression that the Middle East wasn't a very peaceful place even before last Sunday. People were being blown up on the beaches of Beirut and in the redoubts of western Iran. To judge the extent of the silliness, notice that among the governments objecting is Iran, locked in a war with Iraq. Is there any reason to doubt that there were sighs of relief in the Saudi palaces upon learning that Iraq won't have a bomb soon?
Being concerned about the peace of the Middle East does not make it necessary to be deceived about the necessary components for peace. Without a doubt, the ability of Israel and Egypt to come to terms has contributed mightily to that end, and President Carter's role in aiding that agreement was a major foreign policy achievement. But Lebanon has become a madhouse and the Soviet Union, through its surrogate, Syria, seems intent on keeping it that way to keep the Middle East pot boiling.
In such a situation it is not entirely implausible for the United Sates to send a shuttle diplomat to try to damp down the passions and seek out possibilities for a modus vivendi. But the best chances for peace, to the extent they exist, depend far more heavily on balance of power perceptions in the area itself.
The Israelis are not infallible, but their security for 33 years now has depended on making careful power judgments. They know that their best chances for avoiding bloodshed lie in frequently reminding their neighbors that they are strong and that their wishes are not to be taken lightly.
The Israeli approach to nonproliferation is limited and direct. But their outlook on the world and on what it takes to earn the world's respect offers a few lessons we ourselves could profitably learn.
Do your Homework
by Tom Hanks
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 10:21 AM
18 March 2003
U.N. Commission on Human Rights Opens Six-Week Session, March 17, 2003
(U.S. one of the 53 commission members this year)
LINK: Official U.N. Website of the 59th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
The 59th session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights began in Geneva March 17 and will continue until April 25, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in Geneva announced.
A mission news release issued March 18 said the United States is one of the 53 members of the CHR this year and the delegation is headed by Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations.
Among the issues the United States will focus on during the session will be the human rights situations in Cuba, Iraq and North Korea, the news release added.
Following is the text of the U.S. Mission's news release:
(begin text)
Commission on Human Rights
The 59th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR) began today, March 17, and continues through April 25. The United States is one of the 53 members of the CHR this year, after being off the Commission in 2002. The Commission is the foremost international body charged with fostering improvement in the respect for and the protection of human rights around the world.
The U.S. delegation is headed by Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, who currently serves as a Senior Fellow and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. She served as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations with the rank of Ambassador during the Reagan administration.
The United States will focus on the Commission's work regarding the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms embodied in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The United States will seek the adoption of resolutions dealing with the human rights situations in Cuba, Iraq, North Korea and other countries. The United States will also introduce a resolution on Belarus and co-sponsor one on Turkmenistan.
In recent years, the work of the Commission has been compromised by the efforts of certain member states seeking to deflect scrutiny of their own human rights records. Increasingly, countries with poor human rights records have sought membership on the Commission in order to influence the agenda and protect themselves from criticism. We will challenge the Commission to live up to its mandate and responsibilities.
In January, the Commission members selected Libya as the CHR Chair for 2003. The United States vehemently opposed the candidacy of Libya and will closely monitor the Chair.
(end text)
.
by .
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 10:23 AM
it doesn't take too long to check facts
You're right, it doesn't: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,879019,00.html Libya took the chair in January. I quick google search will turn up tons of articles about it.
.
by .
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 10:23 AM
it doesn't take too long to check facts
You're right, it doesn't: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,879019,00.html Libya took the chair in January. A quick google search will turn up tons of articles about it.
ok ok
by jwg
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 10:40 AM
"Geneva, 27 March 2003
Following are the comments by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello to the fifty-ninth session of the Commission on Human Rights today...."
so as of last thursday, the high commissioner was Sergio Vieira de Mello of brazil.
your right I was soo wrong in thinking that
jwg the fact remains
by s.Odamninsane
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 10:42 AM
That the UN has ACTUALLY allowed a coutnry like Iraq or Libya to sit in a positino of authority with these committees. It is not so much that TODAY they may not be there, but that in the VERY RECENT past these despotic regimes have held positinos on these UN committees. I think that pretty much proves the UN is ineffective.
so what
by jwg
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 10:46 AM
we're good buddies with isreal, who are just as bad as all these nations you mention, does that render us ineffective.
In a group like the un, everyone must have a voice, you cannot ignore someone because you don't like them
Jwg, What ?
by S.Odamninsane
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 10:56 AM
What are you saying? You think that someone soesnt think that Iraq or Libya shoudl be excluded from a leadership position wiht respect to nuclear nonproliferation or human rights becasue the US "doesn't like them." You are even stupider than I had given you credit for !! It is not at all about who are our friends ...it is entirely about the fact that nations like that just simly have no business in these positinos becasue they are the greatest violators of the purpsoes of the committee. Adn don't give me your canned "well Isreal oppresses the Palestinians" Bullhooey. to that I would only ask that you join me at the next rally in a clal for freedom for Isreal form PLO oppression. FREE ISREAL !!!!
wow
by jwg
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 11:06 AM
to follow your tangent... you cannot oppress without power, and the PLO has no power. I'm IN NO WAY saying that they are guiltless, but again, the oppression by isreal on the palestinians gives the PLO a chance to try to justify their actions.
AGAIN i AM NOT saying I believe their actions are justified. But if Isreal had not forced them out of their homes on to reservations and then continued to build settlements on their reservations, there would be no leg for arafat to stand on. As it is however, the actions of the israeli government cause some people to view Arafats actions as justifiable (Again, not me)
jwg, caught in the trap
by S.Odamninsane
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 11:16 AM
I feel sorry for you. You have gotten yourself trapped in that terrible spot where your inch-deep appreciation of all things more complex than whether someone got chocolate in your peanut butter or they got peanut butter on yoru chocolate, really get you wrapped around a post. Part of providing real thought and analysis is the ability to make a decision and distinction after it is all done. Israel has been protecting itself agaisntthe racism of the Palestinians for 50 years, but you are hung up analysing the whoel thing in the context of current events. You may think that the current tactics of Israel are heavy handed, but why don;t you explain how Israel is to put a stop to the murder of its citizens on a nearly daily basis. Actually, the bulldozing of terrorist homes has put a crimp on the recruiting activities of the PLO (imagine those job posting "Wanted - Delivery boy for the PLO. The last job you will ever want (or have)"). And remember, Israe has already tried to exchange land for peace, adn all they got was more mayhem. THe real issue there is that the racist PLO wants Israel out of the middle east (actually, I think that they want Jews off of the face fo the Earth).
goodie
by jwg
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 12:42 PM
hahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahah!
UN Resolution VS UN Security Council Resolution
by Prodigal Yunzer
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 4:57 PM
ISRAEL has NEVER failed to comply with a UN Security Council resolution, in their own sweet time of course. A UN General Assembly resolution is basically a joke, like the 99-0 Sense of the Senate Resolution they passed before the war started. It has no teeth. One such inanity equates Zionism with racism, for example. OK zionism is racism, if it makes you happy. Now what are you gonna do about it? Nothing, cause your General Assembly Resolution has no teeth.
Israel would not be "occupying" "Palestine" if the mighty Arab armies had not warred against it in 1967 and 1973. They won that land when they beat the Arab owners and took it over as a security buffer against further foolishness such as the disorganized aggression that characterizes Arab warfare. Much of the land they won fair and square was returned by the way.
mock pro-war rally
by .
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 12:59 PM
so is it safe to assume the april fools mock pro-war rally isn't happening? i'll show up if some others are planning to.
'War with Iraq - it's better than Viagra'
sick
by justin
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 1:44 PM
wertasdf1@juno.com
you guys are all sick
sometimes war is unavoidable, this is one of those times.
move to iraq if you like it soo much, and stop bitching.
go listen to rush limbaugh, someone who makes sense
.
by .
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 2:31 PM
justin,
you so right, just yesterday iraq's government threatened to lob a few nukes our way. i will sleep better knowing that my children live in a world were my president spends billion of $$$ dropping laser guided bombs in a country that doesn't even have an air force.
why don't you chew on this - what's more of a threat to your way of life - certain death by DUI (16,000 to 17,000 deaths per year in USA) or a vague WMD threat from gov' t of iraq?
byebye
It is on!!!
by CalTechGuy
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 4:24 PM
We have 4 (5 with me) going but we're doing it in Oxford Centre lobby (home of corporate america). Only come if you're going to be peaceable about it. We have extra signs!
Rally
by CalTechGuy
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 4:25 PM
Sorry, forgot to mention it's at 5pm (when all of the people are leaving work)
Rally
by jon tishov
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 5:41 PM
jbakes@hamlin.net
I went to Oxford but no one was there, but the security guards were out and looking threatening. Did anyone else show up? What happened?
Thursday?
by Jan
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 5:49 PM
Is the rally/march scheduled for thursday cancelled?
so guys...
by -=@$$=-
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 8:35 PM
...how'd it go?
Get a life
by Krystle
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 12:53 AM
You, should be pro war even without April fools. You peace lovers should be picked up and put on the front line in Iraq. We have a wonderful president and wonderful troops who are working hard to keep us safe. You people are to stupid to see that so you have to go around chanting peace. Lets see what you would say when we stop and let Iraq bomb the hell out of us.
but they can't
by jwg
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 4:04 AM
Iraq does not have the capability to, or ever expressed the desire to bomb the hell out of us. In this conflit, we are the only country to make that threat, and follow up on it.
Oxford Centre
by CalTechGuy
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 7:55 AM
Three of us showed up with signs and were immediately escorted out the side door. Almost got in a fight with the security guard with a butch (I think his name is Ken). Caused some attention anyway!
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)