Well, no, I’d say there’s a LOT of doubt. Do you have any objective evidence that anti-war protests have an impact on the level of Iraqi resistance?
Personally, I don’t beleive it does, and I’d like to see proof of your claim that this effect exists.
My bad, there’s a whole post about that story already.
I want proof that protests lead to casualties as well. Right wing speculation doesn’t cut it.
Follow along here, guys:
People tend to fight harder for causes in which they think they have a chance of prevailing than for causes in which they think they have no chance.
International and domestic opposition to the war is something that might cause the Iraqis to prevail, in terms of the US abandoning the war effort. The more opposition, the greater likelihood that the US abandons the war and the Iraqis prevail.
Therefore it follows that international and domestic opposition to the war tends to make the Iraqis fight harder, prolonging the war.
I don’t see anything to disagree with here - pretty simple stuff.
Of course, if you could make the argument that the anti-war protesters will prevail very quickly - say, if they could make the US pull out this week - one might argue that they will lessen casualties. But I don’t think there is a realistic chance of that happening. The US will not pull out unless the war drags out for some time with mounting casualties. The best hope for the US and Iraq would be as quick of a US victory as possible, and the more inevitable a US victory seems, the quicker it will come. So the protestors, by giving hope to the Iraqis, are adding to the body count (on both the US and Iraqi sides).
:eek:
My god, Beagle, I can’t believe that link. I feel like 1,000 showers cannot wash of the filth of that site. I am forever ashamed that they can count my visit in their hit count. I’ve seen neo-nazi sites with more reason and compassion. How lovely that the feedback section is called “go postal”. Please tell me that you do not consider that site as making any rational arguments, "blunt"ly or otherwise.
CTB
We could turn this on it’s head and speculate that the pro war folks are indirectly responsible for casualties (i.e. all of them). Inflammatory as hell, but probably bullshit.
The OP, as far as I can tell, is just thinly disguised War Protestors=Un-American propaganda, and to be honest I am very, very tired of it.
Look, we on the left understand that The Iraqi regime is evil, and oppressive. Really. The problem is that this is not why we invaded. To date, I have not been given an honest answer as to why we have. At very best, there is some nuanced reason involved information that Bush won’t share, regional interests and who knows what. The problem is that I am being asked to but a pig in a poke, and want no part of it.
That there is a potential to improve conditions on the human rights scale after is wonderful (assuming that we follow through more so than, say, we did in Afghanistan), but I think that this is really something that the folks supporting the war are telling themselves to feel good about it.
So you know what; In the same way that you folks that are in favor of the war are capable of doing so while still respecting my right to disagree, so are we that oppose it capable of doing so without implicitly supporting the current Iraqi regime. Please put away the strawmen.
Can you provide examples of FrontPage’s lack of compassion, reason and rational arguments. Calling the feedback section “GoPostal!” doesn’t qualify as neo-nazi in my book, nor even as offensive. If you look here, you can see how widely that phrase is used. I interpret the name as an invitation to send impassioned feedback.
Do you have any better examples to support your POV?
Does anyone know what were the ratings for the Oscar telecast in Baghdad? 
You mean Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld? Or Dick Cheney? Richard Perle? I don’t know which of them you think is the most responsible. I should have said the Bush administration and not just Bush. But in my opinion, since Bush is President the buck stops with him.
-fh
I think you’re still ignoring someone who deserves just a teeny bit of blame. Here’s a hint: His initials are SH.
As much as it pains me to have to visit that filth again, here are some examples (honestly december, do you really want to support these people?):
From Symposium: Ashcroft Justice:
At this crucial point in the War on Terror, it appears simply vital to ask: what is the real state of Ashcroft Justice? Are the concerns of the Left truly justified – or are they simply just a smokescreen for the destructive agenda of the Hate-America-Left?
From Editorial: Black Muslim Traitors:
Suppose the traitor who rolled three grenades into the tents of our soldiers in Iraq, killed a captain and wounded 15 others, was a member of Jerry Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church or Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral. Do you think his picture might be on the evening news or page one of the New York Times? In fact, the culprit, Asan Akbar (aka Mark Fidel Kools) is a black Muslim from South Central Los Angeles, and a member of the Masjid Bilal Islamic Center there. What this incident would show us, if the press were doing its job, is that there is a connection between the ideas people devote themselves to and what they wind up doing. (The fact that Akbar’s former middle name – which looks adopted as well – is “Fidel” is probably not without significance either.)
Those are two examples of argumentation that I would say lacks a certain rational style of discourse. It is not the left, but the “Anti-American-Left”. The traitor (yes they got that term right) who lobbed grenades, it must be pointed out is not only a muslim (horror of horrors) but has the bad taste to be of the black persuasion. Please, december, I beg of you, please explain how this site represents reasoned argumentation and not reptile-brain religion and race baiting.
If you can seriously defend these people, then I stand in awe at your ability to place partisanship before reason. And I did not call these people neo-nazis, I simply placed their level of reason and compassion in line with them.
Oh and as a bonus, here is the Coulter article that got my blood boiling to begin with. I did not include it above because I realize that she is beyond the pale even for many Republicans. I have never come across a more loathesome individual, and she does the right no favors by opening her mouth.
I don’t know of anyone in the Bush administration with those initials. Help me out here.
Of course you wouldn’t, that’s what you’re inclined to believe anyway.
Now present some proof of these three assertions you just made are relevant and plausible.
Some things you are ignoring:
GW doesn’t give a squat about anti-war protests. Even Saddam probably knows this.
Iraqis are defending their homeland from invaders. The prospect that some liberals are holding signs and shouting slogans in the US is hardly going to be more inspiring than that.
This is silly. Does anyone really believe that if there were no anti-war protests, the Iraqi military would realize just how united Americans are in their brave determination to find glory on the battlefield, causing the dictactor (Saddam) and his henchmen to flee from power, thereby saving the lives of countless patriotic Americans?
What a crock! It sounds like the statements attributed to WWI era generals, that a good esprit de corps could overcome the machine gun and other new technologies of war.
I can think of countless reasons why Iraqi soldiers may continue to fight, even though they probably know that the war will be lost. Lessee… they might actually support Saddam; they might hate America; they might not want to be shot trying to desert; they might want to defend their country; they might not want to be tried in court for their thuggery; they might want to inspire others to take up arms… or yeah, and there’s always the possibility that Bush may be deposed by that guy with the hemp t-shirt and the “no war” sign! Just how high do you figure these protests fit in to the calculation on whether to fight or surrender?
I think this war is a bad – strike that – a terrible idea, but now that it’s started, we ought to win it. If Saddam and his ilk want to base their military strategy on the riff-raff of American colleges getting thrown in the pokey for blocking streets in the busy parts of town or putting together really awesome puppets of Bush and John Ashcroft, good luck to them.
As much as it pains me to have to visit that filth again, here are some examples (honestly december, do you really want to support these people?):
From Symposium: Ashcroft Justice:
At this crucial point in the War on Terror, it appears simply vital to ask: what is the real state of Ashcroft Justice? Are the concerns of the Left truly justified – or are they simply just a smokescreen for the destructive agenda of the Hate-America-Left?
From Editorial: Black Muslim Traitors:
Suppose the traitor who rolled three grenades into the tents of our soldiers in Iraq, killed a captain and wounded 15 others, was a member of Jerry Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church or Robert Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral. Do you think his picture might be on the evening news or page one of the New York Times? In fact, the culprit, Asan Akbar (aka Mark Fidel Kools) is a black Muslim from South Central Los Angeles, and a member of the Masjid Bilal Islamic Center there. What this incident would show us, if the press were doing its job, is that there is a connection between the ideas people devote themselves to and what they wind up doing. (The fact that Akbar’s former middle name – which looks adopted as well – is “Fidel” is probably not without significance either.)
Those are two examples of argumentation that I would say lacks a certain rational style of discourse. It is not the left, but the “Anti-American-Left”. The traitor (yes they got that term right) who lobbed grenades, it must be pointed out is not only a muslim (horror of horrors) but has the bad taste to be of the black persuasion. Please, december, I beg of you, please explain how this site represents reasoned argumentation and not reptile-brain religion and race baiting.
If you can seriously defend these people, then I stand in awe at your ability to place partisanship before reason. And I did not call these people neo-nazis, I simply placed their level of reason and compassion in line with them.
Oh and as a bonus, here is the Coulter article that got my blood boiling to begin with. I did not include it above because I realize that she is beyond the pale even for many Republicans. I have never come across a more loathesome individual, and she does the right no favors by opening her mouth.
I think that anybody who’s adept at propoganda can spin any situation to suit their purposes. We see it on this board all the time from both the left and the right. If there were no protests whatsoever, I could easily picture the Iraqi propoganda machine saying something like “these Americans are so scared of losing that they have silenced all their dissenters. There were Americans protesting the first Gulf War. Where did they all go? Clearly, the American government is so weak that they cannot even tolerate the freedom of speech which they claim to cherish.”
Personally, I think the fact the Bush and Co. have gone to war despite the protests indicates that the government is certain that the victory will come quickly and easily and will not turn into another Vietnam. Also, by having protests we send a message to Iraq that we are functioning as usual, and this war hasn’t disrupted our normal way of life.
First of all, the O.P. assumes that Saddam and his followers are going to think logically and rationally about their chances of success, and I think it’s quite obvious that they do not, and never will.
Second, the logic that anyone should support a war that they believe is wrong, merely in the hopes that it will be over quicker, is pretty scary.
Third, just for the sake of argument, let us say that lives could be saved by restraining free speech. We still would have to measure the lives saved against any lives lost in future wars, since the U.S. military would certainly be emboldened by the perceived lack of domestic dissent.
Fourth, if the price of battling oppressive foreign regimes is to squelch dissent at home, then we have simply become our enemy.
I dont even need PROOF that anti-war sentiment effects the troops, all i want is an explaination or theory. Maybe im thick but i dont understand how anti-war could = troop casualties in any way, shape or form. Im just looking for the logical path to the outcome.
I can’t wait for the Iraqi civilians to have those same rights as you and I, so we can hear their viewpoints of this war against “real” oppression (regime) and whether or not if it was worth the casualties of the human race: Iraqi, American & British alike. It would be quite selfish to say that only Americans and a handful of other countries deserve these freedoms when there are people in other countries who are dying by the thousands during their own “Peace-time” at the hands of their own brutal dictator and can’t say or do anything to oppose him without the fear of death, unless they get help from other countries.
Two words…Jane Fonda