Nixon's defense against mass protests were always along the lines of 'but the silent majority agrees with me'... it took many many years of filthy hippy protesting and tens of thousands of American dead soldiers to get some result. The Bush administration with their track record of unbelievable arrogance will most likely not even bother with Nixionian excuses, i think, they'll just ignore it until it goes away.bikkeldesnikkel wrote:I don't agree at all. It's not about the politicians to begin with. Politicians are merely employees (at least, they should be). It's about the psychological and katalisizyizing(whut?sp?) effect on the rest of the U.S. residents and the rest of the world. There's a great deal of discontent for the U.S. in the western world, all waiting for some sign that Americans themselves are as fed up with this crap as they are.
Besides it's retarted not to even try. The fuck is a one-day march worth compared to the destruction of a nation?
I'm just sceptical at the results, and can imagine why people would dismiss with the idea altogether. A strike of some sort like GKY suggested would probably make more of an impression.
But yes - why not try. It gives a sign to their fellow countrymen, the world and the administration. And i met my ex at a protest rally, so you meet new exciting people too ey

As for the idea that politicians are the employees of the people - that's how it started, but that's not how it works anymore. The system is fucked and corrupted to the core. At least our yankee friends have a beautiful document that offers alternatives to protests and strikes when it comes to getting rid of your leaders, i really wish we had one.