honestly, I could care less about the caribou.
Well, Kalt, what can we say? With people like you to make the case for war, who needs protesters?
Why is it that so many people think that US casualties are the only reason for opposing a war? If no Americans get killed you think there’s no problem? What a shallow and self-important worldview.
[hijack]I object to the war because I don’t it’s morally right for my country to attack people who have done nothing to us. I think an invasion of Iraq could bring great harm to innocent people. I fear that Hussein, feeling he has nothing to lose, will throw anything and everything he’s got in the way of chemical and bilogical weapons at American soldiers, at Israel and at his own people. I believe that Bush wants to invade Iraq for his own self-aggrandizement and for cynical political reasons. I simply don’t think a war is ethically justified. I don’t want my country to make a hurtful and immoral choice.[/hijack]
As to the OP, I think people might change their minds if they could see pictures of the real human damage which American bombing would do the most innocent people in Iraq. Seeing toddlers with their limbs blown off might arouse some sympathy in some Americans, and a sustained war with American casualties could turn public sentiment as well.
Basically, I guess I’m saying that it’s the consequences of war which change public opinion, not protesting. I do think, however, that protesting is valuble in that it provides a visible show of dissent. It reminds people that they don’t have to blindly follow the government. It reminds the government that not everybody is going to buy the company line, and it annoys the sheep.
Fight the power, I say.
A view from the other side if you don’t mind.
Your Father is fighting a much more uphill battle then he did when he protested veitnam in that we were attacked on our soil. This is a very rare event (war of 1812, civil war, WW2 {pearl harbor and Alaska -people forget this one}). Some other wars were on the land that is now the USA but wasn;t when the war happened (i.e. revolutionary war).
In peoples minds Iraq are somehow (rightfully or not) related to the attacks on the USA. Even if they don’t buy into this relationship they know that the US is hated by Iraq.
They also know that Iraq is working on nukes and has some chemical weapons and may have bio-weapons. They also know that when Iraq gets strong enough they will very likley used these weapons on the US (as soon as the figure out how).
They also realize the impossible mission of the UN inspectors - To help put it in perspective, think about if your job was to find such weapons in your own town/city but the town supervisor/mayor and the rest of gov’t, while allowing you free range of the town, are delibertly trying to hide them from you, do you think you would find them? Now expand the search area to the size of Iraq.
So to many people not going to war is equivalent to allowing a nuke to be dropped in the USA - a tough sell.
Add to this the horrible oppresive conditions that people live in over there. Women are not allowed out unescourted (IIRC), and have to be fully covered, can;t have a job, can’t drive. Bush’s side is trying to end this injustice your fathers side is allowing this to continue. I would not say that the right taking the high ground is unfounded at all.
From all that I would say your best avenue is to demand proof that Iraq has WMD. But I feel this will be self defeating as if the cry gets loud enough proof will be provided.
Maybe you should fall back to playing the race card so to speak. It seems like the left plays that card very well and very rarely gets called on it, also the right normally runs from it instead of defending itself.
As to actual methods, I would say If you are going the race card method then the picket signs might get some attention. Join other groups and picket in larger numbers. Hire people to picket (it has been done in the past).
Bravo! Why don’t we print that paragraph on thousands and thousands of magnets and distribute them (ehem) liberally onto public metal objects everywhere?
Personally, I think the highest form of left-wing protest comes from the Radical Cheerleaders!
After all, who can forget such eloquent poetry as:
No, wait! I’ve decided that one’s not the best. Who can forget:
But this may be my favorite:
Okay, I lied. That’s not my favorite. But it’s so hard to choose! Still, as a Canadian, I have to give a nod to their recognition of my fine country:
BTW, this isn’t a joke (not an intentional one, anyway). The Radicall cheerleaders are nationwide, and show up to protest at all kinds of things.
There won’t be time enough. There were many seperate protests against the Vietnam war, it took years to have any effect at all, years before ordinary “mainstream” people were encouraged enough to come forward. It is very unlikely that a war with Iraq could last long enough for that wide spread a protest to grow the essential “roots”.
As a man of Binary’s dad’s generation and inclinations, to this day it is impossible to really say how much any of those demonstrations really accomplished. When the Vietnam Vets Against the War threw their medals on the steps, you could almost feel the sea change. That one was damned effective,
But you gotta do something, so you do what you can. As Ghandi said, it may very well be that what you do is useless. That in no way relieves you of the reponsibility of doing it.
I believe it will happen, I have little hope it can be avoided. What galls me the most, the most poisonous truth, is once it starts I have to hope it all goes swimmingly for Bush and Co. I have to hope for total, swift victory. Hope that it is thier soldiers who suffer and die, thier children made orphans. And not ours.
And I sincerely despise the men who force this choice upon me.
The problem as I see it is this:
Saddam was once thought to represent a secular, progressive alternative to the wave of Iran-like dictatorships that were swamping that part of the world, which is why the West held their noses and ‘supported’ him. That’s been shown to be a disgusting lie. He doesn’t stand for the nationalism of Ho or Nasser or Allende, he stands for the sort of ugly narcissistic I’ll-be-Emperor-of-the-Glorious-United-Whatever-State that we’ve fought two world wars against.
Ron Rosenbaum wrote in the The Observer:
“Pardon me if I ask what might seem like a naïve question, but isn’t the Left supposed to be on the side of oppressed people, rather than on the side of the police states, such as North Korea, or the vicious theocracies, such as Iran, that oppress them? That’s why I used to think of myself as part of the Left. How did it all turn around so that if Mr. Bush opposes a police state, that particular police state is then taken under the nurturing, protective wing of the Left—and those oppressed people don’t count. Police states like Iraq and North Korea must be worth protecting even though they torture their citizens, murder their dissenters, repress women and gays, because—well, because Bush is the devil, and if the devil opposes something, it must have something going for it.”
They need to give an alternative, and why they are so very trusting that they believe Saddam when he says Nope, no weapons, nothing to see here, just lift the sanctions and I promise I won’t work on any nasty weapons.
And, let’s add in the fact that I have at my disposal intelligence going back to all the previous U.N. inspections plus intelligence from military satellites that are said to be able to read the license plates on cars. I mean, I’m not claiming it is easy but I am dubious of your argument that it is that hard, let alone “impossible”!
Me thinks thou dost confuse Iraq and Afghanistan. As others have pointed out, Saddam is not exactly a fundamentalist Muslim. Here is a link to set you straight on women in Iraq…especially in comparison to Saudi Arabia which, last I checked, we are not planning to invade to rescue the poor oppressed women.
Of course, this is not to deny the fact that the Iraqi government is viciously oppressive in general…But, the question becomes at what point we should invade a country because its government is oppressive. Some of us think that we should first work on not actively propping up regimes that are oppressive and go from there.
If your point here is that protesters will be facing a high level of ignorance in discussing this issues, then you’ve made your point well.
In what Orwellian world has “not invading” become synonymous with “protecting”? I mean, you might be able to find a few loony people on the Left who believe that an enemy of our enemy can’t be too bad…But they are extremely few and far between. Most of us think that Saddam is a vicious evil tyrrant and think it would be wonderful if there were a better regime in Iraq. However, we have doubts about whether invading to get rid of him because of such concerns as:
(1) the humans costs of such a war;
(2) the precedent of being able to forceably get rid of a regime not to our liking, no matter how correct we might be in believing that this regime is bad for its people;
(3) whether it is likely that such an action will result in a regime that is significantly better;
(4) what consequences such an action would have for the stability of the Middle East and the world as a whole;
(5) whether a better way to prevent Saddam from using WMDs might be to try to work through the inspection process, deterrence, and the like rather than backing him into a corner where he truly has nothing to lose personally by using whatever he’s got.
Now, I understand there are arguments on the others side too, but it does the cause of going to war with Iraq little good to create a silly strawman to knock down and think that they have justified such a war.
Those are good arguments, jshore, but I guess the OP wants to know how to fit them on a placard 
Well actually Saudi Arabia, be even you admit he’s (well the Iraq gov’t) ‘viciously oppressive in general’.
OK so you may have corrected one single itme, I hardly feel that you can claim Cecilism here.
Also another suggestion - If your group is going to carry signs like ‘no blod for oil’ have them park their SUV’s at least a block away - Not kidding here, I’ve seen such groups with SUV’s that appeard to be theirs (due to not many cars in the area but many parked near the picket). It just kind of ruins the ‘feel’ of it.
Since when does one’s lifestyle choice become the barometer for the sincerity of their message? Do I have to be Black to be a civil rights activist? Should I be a homosexual in order to fight for gay rights? Is possession of a vagina de rigeur for someone who supports equality between the sexes? Why should the type of car someone drives be a consideration in whether or not they’re sincere in their opposition to a war in the Middle East? It’s patently ridiculous.
Mehitabel - Mr. Rosenbaum is definitely confusing opposition to Bush’s war drive with support of the regimes he claims to be fighting against. If anyone should get rid of Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il or the reactionary clerics of Iran, it should be the Iraqi, Korean, and Iranian people themselves. The US’ record of involvement in the Middle East shows they’ll support anyone that seems willing to play ball, human rights records notwithstanding. Whether they “hold their noses” while they do it is rather doubtful at best.
Sure, that’s been happening for almost twelve years now, what’s another five more? :mad:
So, they deserve to live under those regimes because they don’t have the balls to do anything about it. Now there’s a humane point of view.
And if Saddam didn’t want his people to suffer, he shouldn’t have invaded two countries and he should stop stealing money from the oil-for-food program to build those goddamn palaces.
But we’re drifting from the OP. The problem is that Bush is right, in a way–either you do something about these regimes or you acknowledge that they’re too strong and will disrupt too much in that part of the world to be worthwhile toppling. The Left’s argument that there’s nothing we can do about these appalling conditions and that our President is a crazy cowboy for even thinking he can is going to be a hard sell. It goes against a lot of core values, especially ones that these same people so valiantly fought for in the past.
Bush is right about the goal. Anyone on the Left or Right will agree that the world and especially Iraq would be much better off without Saddam at the helm.
But, the issue of debate is not the goal, but the means to the goal and its repercussions. And, either (i) you do something, i.e., wage a war or (ii) acknowledge they’re too strong and nothing can be done is called the Bifurcation fallacy, I believe.
The world is littered with oppressive regimes and people living in appalling conditions. If your argument is that US undertake the role of the world policemen, then, it may be a valid position and one that merits discussion but even under such circumstances one needs to be extremely careful before arriving at the conclusion that a war is necessary. I find it strange that the idea of war is a Left vs. Right issue. One would think it encompasses ideology.
>But, the issue of debate is not the goal, but the means to the goal and its repercussions. And, either (i) you do something, i.e., wage a war or (ii) acknowledge they’re too strong and nothing can be done is called the Bifurcation fallacy, I believe.
Well, OK. But like Mojo said a while ago, the demonstators need to refute the fallacy and give another creative solution, because from what I see of them most of their position seems to boil down to Let’s Not Do Anything.
And of course, policemen ideally don’t have to use their weapons and the vast majority never do. But when they walk out of a situtation, the law has been laid down.
I meant, “…transcends ideology” (disconnect between mind and body!)
**
“Stop!” is, under certain circumstances, an entirely sufficient and adequate message.
If I see someone dangling thier Naughty Bits into a piranha pool, that would be enough. I would not be obliged to suggest they go bowling, or take up another more wholesome activity.
Actually, I have noticed that it’s not a simple Right/Left split. I have been using “The Left” as a sort of shorthand, because the OP mentioned his dad was an old-style liberal, but there are plenty of liberal “hawks” and a lot of the Repubs I know are not exactly anti-war but questioning it. A lot.
The NY Times Magazine of 2 weeks ago is no longer online, but it had a interesting roundtable of “liberal hawks”, many of whom date from the OP’s Dad’s era and are asking pretty much the same questions.