100,000 PROTEST AGAINST BUSH FOR... WHAT?
Baghdad University Survey Last Week Shows Support for U.S. Troops

When President Bush visited Britain last week, supposedly 100,000 people gathered to protest against the president and his policies. I really want to know why these people are protesting. Are they protesting against the new found freedom that Iraqis are experiencing? The fact that inhumane torture has ended in Iraq and they want it to start again? Are they upset that Iraqis can build a democratic government without the push and pull of a dictator unwilling to relinquish power? It is because they are unemployed and have nothing better to do? Unemployed and want to vent their frustrations? Simply anti-American, so just protesting anything "American"? Anti-Semitic? Sadly, this fear and ignorance against Jews is more widespread then many of us would like to believe. Fair amount of the protesters carried "upside-down U.S. flags covered in Nazi swastikas or Stars of David." Maybe it's unfair of me to generally label this crowd as a mass mob without a real purpose or assume they lack the intelligence to comprehend what they were really protesting against.

I understand they are protesting against the invasion of Iraqi. But for what reasons are they upset about? The results are clear that a dictator has been toppled, inhumane torture and abuse has ended, and a road to democracy set in place for the people of Iraq. The road will be difficult and long, but did you really expect anything less? It is the clash of ideologies on a world scale that are at stake and the price will be high. Democracy's stake in the Middle East is a great threat to some people, especially Islamic extremist, that they are willing to lose their lives to end its progress. So more Americans will die, more Brits too, and others' blood will be shed for democracy and freedom to lay its foundation in Iraq.

As I stated, the results of the invasion have been good for the people of Iraq and a majority of them agree with me. Last week, Baghdad University posted the results of a wide survey showing that 72% of Iraqis supported the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, and 63% supported the council that was established. This means, minus Saddam's followers and those he rewarded, that a vast majority of Iraqis support the U.S. presence. If the people of Iraq support the U.S. presence, what are these protesters upset about? What are they against or for?

It has to be more than the idea of "war" that drives these people. "Peace not war" is a shallow and impractical approach to the world. If that is the core and depth of their protests than it would be difficult for me to have a meaningful conversation with many of them.

International protocol? Not sure if many of them even cared about this, but I would think this is one of the few legitimate reasons for protest. They can protest against the U.S. for overstepping its international boundaries as a global power. Since the U.S. didn't have the full support of the U.N., which is more complicated since there were economic reasons for France and Russia to block the resolution, people can accuse the U.S. of abusing its power. If I was a dictator in the world, I would protest and use all the diplomatic means that I could to raise a ruckus since such actions would set a precedent towards a potential invasion by the U.S. into my kingdom.

I would also care if I didn't trust the U.S. democratic process and believed that a madman or lunatic could become leader of the free world, but it is very unlikely if not impossible. Besides all the jokes against Bush and questions about his intelligence, he is far from a madman or lunatic, and has proven himself to be a bold leader guided by his principles rather than opinion polls.

If they bring up the "blood for oil" issues, then I really will make wide assumptions that these people are idiots. And if they truly believed "big business" drove Bush and his policy-makers towards war then they should protest on an equal level against the leaders and governments in France and Russia.

Many of the voices in the U.S. public forum are tangled in next year's presidential race so positioning and politics have taken the frontseat while open and honest discussions have been pushed aside. I enjoyed talking with my graduate school classmate and friend, JB, early on when the invasion was initiated. JB is a San Francisco Democrat, so we don't see eye-to-eye on many issues but we can intelligently discuss things between us.

He said to me, "Look, I know the neoconversative philosophy is driving much of this invasion and those guys want to plant "democracy's flag" in the Middle East, but just come out and say it instead of all this BS about Saddem and his WMD..."

"Do you really think those things can be stated, JB? Come on... And there were legitimate concerns about weapons of mass destruction..."

What really amuses me up is how people in the U.S. are upset that we are spending billions on Iraq, but supposedly doing nothing on our economy and job creation. What does 7.2% GDP growth mean to them? Why am I getting a few calls a week on my resume this past month versus one or none over the prior six months?

In the CNN article one woman stated, "I don't understand how Bush can justify spending billions extra on defense when these more basic needs of employment and medical care aren't being met."

Are these two policies and actions by the government co-dependent on one another? So do you want our government to create more jobs? Do you know what effect creating artificial jobs to prop up the economy will have? It would only be a bandaid for the economy with greater consequences than good for the U.S. So do these people really know what they are asking for when they protest against the use of U.S. dollars for Iraq versus job creation and "improving our economy"?

What were they protesting against in Trafalgar Square last week? Can someone please write me and let me know? Thanks.