<Unfortuately the people who walked our streets in order to protest the war in Iraq didn't reach their objective.

I tend to think you don't really mean "unfortunately"...

I think the main reason for this failure was the choice of walking on America streets- if instead they had protested in Iraq they might have been successful.

I realize, Geoff, you hang the entire rest of your post on this point - you might have checked to see if it was anchored to the wall first. But we'll get back to that...

Another problem was their timing, they should start protesting before the US gears up to conduct a war.

So soon you forget... they did start protesting before then, early enough that some folks here (you may have even been one of them) questioned 'why protest a war that hasn't started yet?'

So they need to plan ahead. Fortuately, Bush has already given a heads up as far as future threats to world security (Axis of Evil), and of these countries I would think that N Korea would be the best next choice.

Completely ignoring the entirely different strategic and tactical situation on that peninsula, of course... (unlike most cynics on the anti-war side, I understand there are practical reasons why the Bush Admin. policy re the PRK isn't consistent). It makes more sense (logistics, plus strength of opposing forces) to extend the anti-Axis actions next door into Iran - except there's an active opposition there, and relatively liberal members of the ruling party, so maybe Iran's brand of evil is a little off-axis...

So these war protesters should start planning on bringing lots of protester over to N Korea (and also bring lots of food, cause there is a shortage over there). Now, to be successful there will need to be lots of people (at least 10,000) and these people must have enough courage to stand up against a evil regime.

They stood up to Bush, didn't they? (sorry, couldn't resist the straight line)

By using non-violent and having some message like "reduce the soldiers on the border" or "feed the starving people" or something. Also they will need to line up the press.

No worries - the press would be waiting for them when they arrived. But now it's time to examine your premise: that war protest is more effective when organized in the country of the soon-to-be enemy. Since it's never been done, that I know of (discounting the 'human shields'), it's a bit of a stretch to make the assertion. Or... are you saying that instead of troops we should send people to non-violently protest the conditions in that country which make it evil? That's a good idea, except that those very countries don't allow their own people to protest, let alone a bunch of foreigners - that's one reason we call them evil, remember?

They could pick Israel instead, but probably that problem will be worked out before they could get there.

Flat on your face, without even a banana peel to blame... Israel, in spite of it's apatheid policies, is still a democracy with relatively open borders - they need the tourist dollars. North Korea is the place one needs a diplomatic shoehorn to get into... and Israel's problems won't be solves any time this century, I'm afraid.

I think that'll do for now...