I was at the march in Glasgow and it was a great experience. My first ever march - the most I ever did as a student, albeit at St Andrews, was a library sit-in (and yes, we worked during it!). I was sort of disappointed that we didn't take ds along (just so we could tell him later "he was there" ), but it was probably for the best: we had an alternative (SIL to look after him) and it would have been a long day for a 2 and a half year old, and the crowds would have been very swamping (plus not exactly relaxing for us!).
The police estimate of 30,000 was just laughable: I have run in the London Marathon, where there are over 25,000 runners - and there was no way that a solid throng of people more than 2 and a half miles long (ie the front of the march reached the SECC long before the back of the march had even been able to leave Glasgow Green) equated to only 30,000. Plus I can remember the crowds of standing people when there were still terraces at Murrayfield. 80,000 - 100,000 people is more likely.
What really bugged me was the way that none of the television newses (and almost none of the newspapers) mentioned Blair's cowardice at changing the time of his speech. Indeed many of them gave the contrary impression: that he was speaking "as the crowds massed outside". The reality was that instead of speaking, as scheduled, at 2 pm when the march was due to have arrived at the SECC (in fact, it was so large that people were still filing in to the car parks then), he had moved it forward to 10 and was away by 11 or so - when the march was only just starting 2 and a half miles miles way. To use a pithy Scottish term - he was a big Jessie!
Someone asked if any Iraqis marched on Saturday - the answer is YES - both in Glasgow and in London. They are NOT supporters of Saddam, but fail to see how this is going to help their country and the ordinary people still there who will bear the brunt of any campaign.
My big concern is that instead of putting a stop to international terrorism, which was supposed to be its objective (I don't buy this new "moral crusade" - it's come too late in the day as a "reason" ), it is going to make the world an even more dangerous place to live as it will create a recruiting tool FOR Osama bin Laden, with the absence of a logical case making many otherwise moderate Muslims into fundamentalists and some of them (doesn't need many!) into terrorists prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice.
I'm really scared for ds's future. The world will become a far more dangerous place. At present Saddam is confined within his country. They have not proven any links between him and Osama. One of best placards at the march was a simple picture of Osama with the message "Osama WANTS this war".
I think it is wrong to assume that all those who went on the march are appeasers. I am NOT necessarily against a war in all circumstances. However, I am not convinced that the case has been made. As the German foreign minister said when he so effectively slipped into English, "I'm sorry, I just don't GET it" (I think that that was why Rumsfeld was so angry - Fischer made him look a fool, and he didn't have the pretence of listening to a translation to hide behind).
My fear is the America has ALREADY destroyed the UN as an effective organisation. The fact that America has said it will go ahead with or without the UN means that a further resolution is irrelevant - that ANYTHING the UN says is irrelevant (apart from confirming that what the US is doing is illegal!).
If we were to spend a fraction of what is being set aside for the conflict (£1 billion here, God know how much in the US) and used that for alternative approaches, what could be acheieved? Flood Iraq with weapns inspectors (they don't all have to be "real" ones, but if you've got, say, 5,000 people going around places, how would Iraq know which ones to "watch" ). Flood the neighboroughing countries with humanitarian aid, for use by Iraqi organisations opposed to Saddam. Send in the Delta, Seal and SA forces to take Saddam out (what's the point of them otherwise). Fund another "Jackal". (America has done it before, successfully, in South America - getting rid of democractically elected presidents because they were not "friendly" to the US) We have already proven that carpet bombing - or even precision bombing - does not achieve the objective of "getting your man" - Osama is still at large despite the use of carpet bombing and "daisy cutters" (indiscriminate killing machines/bombs)
A bit of a long diatribe - but I am fed up of people saying we are supporting Saddam by marching against the war. Not anyone on Mumsnet - but people like Blair, when he tried to take the "moral" high ground.