Always antiwar, never prowar, demonstrations?

Great Debates
1

I’ve always believed that when one deals with “real world” issues (as opposed to matters of abstract logic, etc.), there are inevitably “two sides to every story.”

And in general, humans are ornery enough to bring forward both those sides. The mere existence of Side A tends to provoke and excite Side B, and, other things being equal, there is a kind of longterm tendency toward parity.

Why, then, do we find that public demonstrations, mass marches, soapbox-speeches, and so forth almost always take the “peace now / resist the government” side of war-and-peace controversies? --in America and Europe, at least.

Looking particularly at the last fifty years or so, have there been any cases in the Western world in which massed protestors have demanded (of an antiwar government) that war be initiated, or joined?

Whatever one may think of the “justifications” offered in support of war, there was surely some plausibility to the proposition that the US ought to have intervened at an early stage in the various Yugoslavian conflicts; or in, say, Angola. There is a moral argument to the effect that we ought to have displaced the Taliban well before 9-11. And obviously there are those who regard intervention in Iraq a matter of both moral and practical necessity.

Is here some law of nature, or trait of societies, that makes it easier for the “pacifist-leaning” side to assert itself publically, while those who favor military force as an instrument are content to stay home and watch TV? (As a side issue, why do none of the individuals who think Saddam a monstrous tyrant march en masse in the streets to demand his removal from power?)

(Again, I’m speaking of Europe/America.)

Please note that this question touches upon something odd and interesting EVEN IF one is opposed to the current Bush policy, or to war in general. IMHO, it would be all but unprecedented for a population to exclusively raise a clamor for “the good side” alone.

2

I think the reason is that an ongoing or proposed war is much more visible, and much more likely to draw the attention of the masses.

Whereas a hypothetical war that should take place is not in the public eye as much.

If a war is already going on, the pro war people don’t NEED to demonstrate, since they are already getting what they want.

3

Dunno. Do 30 college kids count as “massed protestors”? :smiley:

http://www.oudaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/03/11/3e6d6ec43b187

4

I actually saw that there was a “pro-war” demonstration covered by CNN. Couple hundred folks, mostly military and dependents, and it was billed as a “Support Our Troops” rally.

There are people who gain some benefit by suggesting that people who oppose this war are disloyal in some way, or in some manner wishing ill for our people. I truly hope nobody here is that stupid.

5

What are you actually asking here?

People who are “pro” a specific war don’t need to demonstrate - there’s nothing easier than getting a government to declare war because a) they want something another country has, b) someone said something about someone’s mother, c) we just want to, we’re bored. The hard part is getting them to stop.

People who are “pro” intervention that isn’t at the top of a government agenda - for example, all the people who bitched and moaned about the Taliban for six years before 2001 happened (and were ignored) - also tend to go about it in different ways, such as writing letters to their representatives, or forming a humanitarian charity, or lobbying the president/prime minister/emperor of their respective country. They also tend to view war very much as a “last ditch” solution, if they view it as a solution at all, and so formulate plans marginally more subtle and detailed than “let’s bomb the shit out of them and let Jesus H Chree-ist sort them out, Jimbob!” Given that protest marches and the like are not very good at conveying a detailed and subtle proposal or viewpoint, they are generally not used as methods of presenting government with their plans.

6

There was a “pro Iraq War” demonstration down here in Australia on the weekend.

Ironically, it was mostly populated by Iraqi emigrants. It was pretty vocal to be sure. They made some good points.

I say “ironic” because the only openly blatant “pro war” demonstration I’ve seen thus far has been by former Iraqi citizens - and the general response by anti-war camps was “Hah… what would THEY know about Iraq?”

7

People demonstrate when they feel their views aren’t being heard. I seriously doubt that’s a problem for the pro-war folks right now.

8

Free Republic claims credit for one, but let’s let Democratic Underground explain it:

9

Oh, really? So, you were there, and like, went around taking notes? You went from person to person at the anti-war rally, asking the question and noting responses? Or you have some published cite? That would be better.

'Cause you know how those anti-war tree-huggers are, they would probably think you’re making this up in order to put a slur on.

10

Oh yeah, and “support our troops,” I love that.

The inverse of “support our troops” is… what, exactly? Do people think that pacifists want all the US/UK soliders in Iraq to come home in body bags? Given that one of the prime concerns of the anti-war groups is that too many of “our troops” might be lost, what exactly are we doing that doesn’t support them?

11

The anti-war protesters better hurry and complain about the would be might be problems of something that hasn’t happened yet war. Because this war is going fast. All anti-war tee shirts and signs must go on sale at half price Monday. Starting Monday we will celebrate the the victory over Iraq before it even happens or before we go to war. We must be proactive, we don’t want to look like we are behind the times. After all this is all about being looking and being cool.

12

Allow me please elucidator, to qualify my earlier statement. I should have pointed out that my observations pertained to the demonstrations and arguements and analysis which have taken place thus far down here in Australia - and in no way reflect the opinions held by billions of people the world over.

However, the “pro war” demonstration did indeed take place yesterday in Sydney. It’s not a lie, and most importantly, I’m certainly not making it up to put a slur on.

13

This has bothered me as well. Some people seem to see the anti-war protests and support of the people who actually must fight as two mutually exclusive things.

I have not heard any anti-war protesters say anything against the troops themselves; the protests have been against those who want to put those troops in harm’s way.

14

Oh, I’ve no doubt the demonstration took place. What causes me a twinge of doubt is your characterization of the responses of the anti-war contingent. After all, you put it in quotes. This is what “they” said. Well, did they? From whence the quotes?

15

Oh elucidator, I see what you’re getting at now…

The quote was by Senator Bob Brown, leader of the Green party on this morning’s (our time) nationally syndicated TV program “Meet the Press”. Bob’s a good guy, and a prominent anti-war person at the moment. He was asked if he felt yesterday’s demonstration had any merit - to which he replied, and I paraphrase here… “Well, they meant well but you need to remember… those persons demonstrating yesterday, most of them haven’t lived in Iraq for over 10 years or more - so they truly aren’t qualified to talk about what conditions are like in Iraq in 2003”.

My immediate response was “Hang bout Bob… that’s a bit rich! You’ve NEVER been to Iraq, so what makes YOUR position automatically MORE valid?”

16

Sounds like a right wanker. Our sides got 'em, too. Not as many, of course. But we’ve got 'em.

17

I read of a sign at today’s Washington peace march that read, Support Our Troops - Bring Them Home.

18

And, to spin the “voice of the Iraqi people” anecdotal evidence still more, Tony Blair (remember him?) got shouted, literally shouted, down by an Iraqi woman in exile who pleaded with him not to invade Iraq, live on national TV.

Of course, this means nothing whatsoever, but it’s nice to have balance, no?

19

Well, dopers…

I think I saw three, or maybe three-and-a-half, actual focused responses to my OP query…

and then a lot of debate about this specific proposed war and whether anti-war protestors are supporting the troops, etc.

No one finds it odd that the political right (if that’s a reasonable characterization of the pro-interventionists) can’t stage-manage more than a handful of demonstrators? Their more-extreme cousins had no problem doing it in the 30’s (though perhaps not specifically “for” war…)

Aren’t there demonstrations in India promoting military action against Pakistan, and in Pakistan promoting military action against India? Don’t at least some of the demonstrations against Israel in the middle east (not necessarily within the Palestinian territories) advocate a massed military response?

Are we to believe that the western world’s “street” has been converted wholesale to the anti-interventionist view?

To me, it doesn’t add up.

20

In a sense, pro-war people are like pro-abortion people. We don’t really enjoy war, but we recognize that sometimes it’s necessary. When it’s necessary, it has to be done, and it has to be done right. I recognize that there may be a need for this war. I don’t see a need for me to march with signs saying this.

  • Rucksinator (badly ripping-off and paraphrasing Dennis Miller)