Maybe this was true in the US, however outside the US the left wing tended to oppose Clinton’s military action too.
There was plenty of US left criticism of, say, Clinton’s Monica-era bombings. Kosovo is another story since many on the left felt it was a genuine humanitarian necessity. (I admit to having been so confused about the facts of that situation that I had no clear opinion at all.)
(A good point I just heard on CNN)
Why didn’t the anti-war protesters protest Iraq’s refusal to fully and unconditionally comply with UN resolutions? Iraq, after all, is the cause of all these problems, not America. I don’t care for the UN myself, but many of you seem to be dead set against moving without UN sanction. Why not protest,loud and proud, against Saddam’s refusal to fully and completely comply with the will of the UN?
Not to mention his human rights violations.
Why would ordinary people need to go to the tremendous effort to organize a public protest simply to protest what their governments and UN representatives can protest for them? Remember, Brutus, France and other countries that are not ready for war at this moment also are calling for full compliance. There is almost no debate at all about the need for compliance; hence the resolution itself.
Perhaps the recent elections were a kind of referendum. The Bush party won.
I hereby protest against Saddam Hussein and demand that he comply with UN resolution 1441.
(* cricket chirps *)
We live in democracies where the government must keep its eye on public opinion, and so protests can change things.
Incidentally, would you agree that since it is UN resolutions upon which this war hinges, it should be up to the UN to choose how it might deal with states who break them?
Sure. And everyone that voted fully anticipated 9/11 and the impending war with Iraq, and so abrogated any right to change their minds.
so you don’t think that the protests against the poll tax in the UK changed government policy?
you don’t think that the anti-vietnam war demos changed US foreign policy?
protests, in democratic societies, can achieve a change in policy when there are enough people participating.
Given the current standing of the labour party in the opinion polls you are clearly not alone
Oh yes indeed. By a comfortable margin of 200,000+ fewer votes than their opponent plus or minus a sympathetic Supreme Court justice or two. 
I think he was talking about the mid-term election, guys. That’s why he said, “The Bush party”, and not “Bush”.
Actually, that’s not quite correct. The figures given in your link for Australia were:
Melbourne: 150,000
Sydney: 250,000
plus, it said, “thousands more gathering across the rest of Australia.”
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, “In all, 500,000 Australians rallied around the nation at the weekend…”
If this is correct, that is about 1 in 40, in a population of just under 20 million. The Australian figures are roughly equivalent to 1.5 million people in the UK, where total population is about 60 million.
Spain is at another level altogether, if the figures in your link are even close to accurate. Your link say that a total of 3 million turned out, which equates to about one in every 13-14 Spaniards.
We had about 25000 in Gothenburg, Sweden, which equates to approximately 1/10th the city’s population. I read they had 60000 in Oslo, many, many more than anticpated.
Turn-out in Stockholm was a little disappointing, though: only about 35000.
Sorry. Just felt like sharing.
Don’t forget that we also had massive protests like this during the Cold War. I clearly remember all the protests against nukes in Europe, cruise missiles, SDI, etc. The protesters were wrong, and the programs went ahead anyway.
Look, everyone knows that 20% of the people are vehemently opposed to this war under any circumstances. This weekend, they organized and marched. This does not give them veto power over a democratically elected government.
Don’t blame me. I voted with the majority.
Ah, yes, those were the days.
“Hollangitis” and “Sooner a nuke in the garden than a Russian in the kitchen.”
Wrong?
Better refrase: " There were alot of protesters, the programs went ahead anyway.
Look, everyone knows that those who actually turn out are only a small percentage of the number sharing their views.
I’ve not yet heard clear arguments against war beyond the vague “war is bad, Shrub is evil” diatribes.
I’m not particularly swayed by numbers in a world where one can get “millions” of folks behind about anything (and I’ve not seen any credible reports indicating “millions” were involved – maybe “million” at a stretch. More like coupla hundred G’s)
When I hear some lucid realpolitik reasons against the war, I’ll listen. Until then I’m not going to jump off the cliff, even if “millions” of other lemmings are doing it too.
PS - Yes, I know that there are indications that lemmings don’t REALLY commit mass suicide. Take it as a parable, not literal if that bugs you.
I love the conservative typical hypocritical mindset. 1000 votes put you over the edge in a presedential elections? “The informed populace has spoken, and they approve of our mandate!” But when 1 million people fight their way through cold and brutality to protest an overseas war, well, that’s just the “ignorant populace. We don’t need to be popular do to the right thing.” Got it?
Sam, I’m not sure that anyone is asking for “veto” power as such. If anyone has made that argument, I missed it.
As to your contention that the no nukes protests during the Cold War were “wrong,” that’s another debate entirely. Many believe that the Cold War would have won without nukes in Europe, and certainly without SDI! It’s only people with your particular philosophy who will insist that these specific weapons were exactly what led to such crucial events as the Solidarity movement in Poland, or Gorbachev’s liberalization policies.
In any case, still waiting for you (or anyone else) to comment on the fact that the majority of Britons do not support Blair; and the majority of Americans only support war with allied/UN agreement. We’re not talking 20% here. We’re talking about the majority. Is it just possible that the instincts of the American majority are right? That there is much danger in being heedless of world opinion in a climate that is already formenting anti-American terrorism.
Consider this article from today’s Times. Here’s an excerpt:
*"Mr. Bush’s advisers are telling him to ignore [massive protests] and forge ahead, as are some leading pro-war Republicans. Senator John McCain, for one, said today that it was “foolish” for people to protest on behalf of the Iraqi people, because the Iraqis live under Saddam Hussein “and they will be far, far better off when they are liberated from his brutal, incredibly oppressive rule.”
That may be true, but it fails to answer the question that France, Germany and other members of the Security Council have posed: What is the urgent rationale for war now if there is a chance that continued inspections under military pressure might accomplish the disarmament of Iraq peacefully?
The fresh outpouring of antiwar sentiment may not be enough to dissuade Mr. Bush or his advisers from their resolute preparations for war. But the sheer number of protesters offers a potent message that any rush to war may have political consequences for nations that support Mr. Bush’s march into the Tigris and Euphrates valleys.
This may have been the reason that foreign ministers for 22 Arab nations, meeting in Cairo today, called on all Arab countries to “refrain from offering any kind of assistance or facilities for any military action that leads to the threat of Iraq’s security, safety and territorial integrity.”*
Question for British posters: is any other political party, or some faction within Labour, articulating some kind of alternative to Blair? The conservatives? the Liberal Democrats? (I hope I got the name of that party right).
Wernet there a very significant turnout before the Afghanistan war? Werent there hundreds of thousands of protestors, detractors for a war against afghanistan? Were they not using the same rhetoric?
*War will kill too many innocent civilians
*War was about repressing a muslim nation.
*There was no proof of involvement by the Taliban
*Why are we not looking into Pakistani involvement
*Too many will die in this war
*Afghanistan will defeat the US like they did the Soviets
Where are all those protestors now?
IMHO, these millions of protestors do not have the facts. That is what is fueling their anger, not the thought of war. They are left in the dark and are told to follow along and trust their governments. All will be revealed eventually.
When the evidence does start to show up, the war kicks off not too much later. Thats what you have to watch for. When the US and Britain starts sharing intelligence information, it means it is not valuable to their enemies anymore. Thats when they start kicking ass.