Oh, but I suppose you’re right - I haven’t heard anything worthwhile out of any of the protesters so far.
<<Why are you pushing your conclusions here? Just as you don’t care what the protesters are saying, they don’t really care what you are saying.>>
Oh, yes, they do. That’s why they’re out marching and protesting and trying to get their message out.
They’re very definitely in the minority, and their policies are NOT being implemented, and they’re being marginalized and ignored.
They need my vote.
They can get it if they build the case. But their arguments thus far are losers.
Look, cowgirl, what were you and the OP hoping or expecting to find, here? Did you think that people would bow down and say “O great peace movement, change nothing. You are perfect the way you are?”
No.
Obviously, the protest tactics are ineffective. The U.S. government continues to pursue a confrontational policy with Iraq despite all the rehashed slogans and marches.
So it’s obvious that the left needs to do something to become more effective.
I’ve already put forth what I need to do: can the kneejerk slogans and the picket-sign logic, and build a cogent case not for why the war is WRONG–That argument has long since been lost–but why it is ill-concieved and counterproductive to U.S. interests.
There IS a case to be made for that. But you guys are wasting bandwidth on “No Blood for Oil” and other ineffective and politically suicidal crap.
Building a cogent case, and winning the war of ideas is not something not something you do in marches. That’s something you do one on one, in coffeehouses, bars, and in op ed pages, magazines, books, TV appearances, etc.
<<If you can’t acknowledge that any protesters may have something to say, then there is no point having this discussion with you, and you are in the wrong thread entirely.>>
Nope…the OP posed a question, and I posited an answer and my rationale for it. I’m sorry you don’t like the answer, but as I see it, that’s really your problem, more than mine. If you don’t like what you hear, then I would suggest you’re in the wrong forum. 
Well said.
I have to say that I do find the whole war on Iraq disturbing - why now, why Iraq. I am quite willing to believe that Hussein is much more dangerous than I realize, or that overthrowing him will stablize the region or help his people, or similar - but Bush hasn’t made that case very well.
On the other hand, protesters seem to be stuck in 1972; and I don’t understand why freeing the people of Iraq isn’t a worthy “left wing” goal. Aren’t liberals supposed to be the champions of the oppressed? Then why aren’t they championing the Iraqis, the Kurds, the North Koreans? Why are they supporting dictators? The impression I get is that they oppose the war simply because a republican is president, and no other reason is needed.
Cowgirl, a couple of points:
I will concede that protests, with picketers and chants and all that funny 60’s stuff, will do well as a method of bringing attention to a situation. The example of protesting to build awareness of the proposal you deemed harmful to the wilderness is case in point - nobody knew about it, the protesters raised awareness.
However, with this war, it’s different. I can’t imagine anybody with more social awareness then the average Playboy centerfold not being aware that we may be going to war with Iraq. That being the case, building awareness of this war is pointless, because everybody is already aware. It’s now a matter of building a convincing argument to sway people one way or the other, and protesting will do a worse job of that than even a television news program. You simply can’t fit an argument on a 3’x5’ card - all you can do is spout soundbites, and probably just the same soundbites that everyone has already done. I suppose you’ll get the attention of politicians, but if their polls tell them that 65% of people approve of a war, they won’t give a damn about your protest efforts.
Now, to answer your question - what would I do if I felt the war was unjust? Well, I would do what I do with any political situation I care about - discuss it with friends and associates, and try to get them to see my side. I promote social awareness on a personal level. It’s not much in a save-the-world kinda way, but it’s something. And if I decided to go on a crusade? Well, I would do the sorts of things I mentioned before. Organize lectures - true, there’s a lot of preaching to the choir that goes on, but there are always some people with differing opinions attendent. Start up an organization - Concerned Citizens Against Invading Iraq, or something - and publicize. Once you get enough people onboard, pool your resources and buy a local TV spot. Get on public access TV. Go to your local university and try to get the people there involved. You can always count on the average college student to be against any war, regardless of what it is, so finding loyal supporters won’t be a problem. It’s just a matter of getting them to act, since they’re predominantly a lazy bunch.
Oh, but if you do decide to picket, for the love of God, stay the holy hell out of traffic. I swear, next time I have to slow down because some anti-globalization protesters are leaking out into the street, I’m gonna imbed a few of them in my grill.
Jeff
Since when does opposition to a war, no matter what reasoning is used to justify that opposition, automatically translate into support for the leaders of the country on which war is made? Who says that the people protesting the war on Iraq don’t support the liberation of the people of Iraq? I think your impressions, porkchop, aren’t the result of actually talking to anyone out at a rally to oppose the war.
I’d love to see you try to beat that one in court. “They were protesting where I didn’t want them to protest, Your Honor, so I ran them over.”
porkchop_d_clown, are you also a fan of Ron Rosenbaum? This column in the Observer pointed out the same thing:
“Pardon me if I return to that sign: “BUSH IS A DEVIL … HANDS OFF N. KOREA, IRAQ,” etc. 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.”
And this one, on why he dissociates himself from the protestors because they lump Iraq and Afghanistan together, is also interesting.
I believe in liberating people as much as I believe in government. If I thought that’s what Bush wanted, I’d be all for it. Though there’s a long list of saving we’d have to do, and I don’t think Bush is prepared to do that.
Porkchop: I was not addressing you specifically, just people who say what you are saying.
Hickory6: The protesters may not care what you think. They are more concerned with engaging open-minded or undecided people. I myself am not losing any sleep over what you think, I would be more interested in speaking with someone who respected my opinions. Read ElJeffe’s post for an idea of what I have in mind.
cite, please. Massive anti-war protests have been held all around the world, please include them in your statistics.
no generalizations here :rolleyes:. I have never said ‘No Blood for Oil’ to you or to anyone else, please do not attribute it to me, or to anyone else who has never said it. I asked you once to address me based on my own merits and opinions, not those with whom I share political ideas, and you seem to have missed that point entirely. I will not ask you again.
ElJeffe: Thank you for your thoughtful post. Your suggestion for what to do: people are doing all of those things already. They are about as effective as the protests, it seems, since as Hickory6 likes to point out, 'The U.S. government continues to pursue a confrontational policy with Iraq '.
Awareness: I have to respectfully question your assertion that ‘building awareness is pointless, since people are already aware’. They are aware that there is a confrontation in the works, they know about the whole WMD thing, but in the age of instant news, mass media, and so on, do you really think everyone has all the information? The reason I bring this up is because a lot of what protesters do is try to counter misinformation, to tell people the stories that don’t make it on CNN (of which there are many) and to attempt to provide alternative coverage of the situation, from a point of view other than corporate news.
Lest someone suggest that it is yet more leftist bllcks for me to suggest that there is ‘news’ that doesn’t get presented on CNN or the corporate media, this idea is part of what they are protesting. Check out www.indymedia.com or www.rabble.ca, I am certain some of the authors there will be objectionable (I certainly don’t agree with all of them) but they do provide an alternative take which I believe to be every bit as valid as CNN. Again, I’m not saying they’re necessarily ‘valid’. I’m just saying they should be part of the discussion.
Cowgirl,
“Massive” protests all over the world matter very little to Bush when polls of US citizens show that they (the US citizens) largely support war with Iraq. I also wonder how protests in Europe are going to convince Joe Farmer in Iowa that Bush is wrong when Joe doesn’t have much respect for Europeans in the first place.
Mehitibel,
I did read Rosenbaum’s editorial; and I agree with his larger point - the left is self-destructing right now, the same way the right did several years ago, and for similar reasons.
It’s frustrating when the stuff that passes for political discourse sounds like it came out of the X-Files.
OK, I guess that I am going to sort of hijack my own thread here a bit, because it seems that folks just want to talk about the specifics of the Iraq/left protesting Iraq situation rather that the broad question with which I began. That is fine.
While there are some excellent points to be made as to why the current leadership of Iraq is bad, the whole thing kind of stinks. Let me explain why. To my knowledge, Iraq has not done anything to us, nor are they in a position to really do so.
So, we then get in to the “moral” side of the issue in which I am supposed to believe that we are going to go in and do it for the poor oppressed people of that soveregn nation (not for oil or any other capitalist interest, goodness no).
The problem here is that if we are going to put ourselves in the position of being the beat cop of the globe, than there are a whole lot of other areas that demand our attention. For example, it looks like there are around 27 MILLION people that are in a state of slavery right now and 246 MILLION children are involved in child labor right now and Women in Afghanistan are still suffering oppression (but boy oh boy we liberated it and got the bad guys out) , and hell do I need to go on. The injustice in the world today is staggering.
That is why this whole Iraq thing stinks. Because I can’t understand why we are doing it, and it pretty much looks as if we are looking the other way for so many of the horrible things that are happening around the world. In these conditions, I start to get very suspicious.
Show me that Iraq is a credible threat, put your cards on the table and I will think about it. The problem is that the reasons (changing from week to week though they do) that our leaders are giving me for attacking seem flimsy. I feel as if I am being lied to and I don’t like it.
Olentzero:
Well, when the place I “didn’t want them to protest” happens to be in the middle of the freakin’ street, I think I have a right to complain. Okay, maybe not the right to run them down like frightened deer, but I maintain it’s a fine line. 
cowgirl:
First of all, you’re welcome. While I probably seriously disagree with your political views, I have to respect your desire to go out and fight for what you believe. Too much apathy nowadays. Anyway…
Very true. Not to discourage you or anything, but I honestly don’t think there’s really anything that the anti-war folks can do to change the course of events. Even if I felt that your arguements against war were valid (and I don’t know your specific arguments, but I’ve probably heard them from someone somewhere, and I feel reasonable sure that I would disagree), I simply don’t think there’s enough time to change enough minds. Especially given the current foreign affairs climate, there’s simply too much ardent support for an Iraq invasion, and at best a couple months before we’re likely to go in, if we truly are going in. That being said, knock yourself out. Can’t say I don’t admire your determination, however hopeless I may feel your cause is.
There’s also always the chance that your side has different moral priorities than most Americans. If your rallying cry is “5000 lives will be lost”, but most Americans think that 5000 lives lost is a fair price to pay for whatever we’ll be gaining, then all the information campaigns in the world aren’t going to help.
When I say that people are “aware”, I simply mean that they’re aware of the issue in general terms, and have probably heard most of the soundbites from each side that are floating around. I doubt that a significant fraction of the population has anywhere near the depth of knowledge of the average SDMB poster, and even the most informed of us is likely to be missing huge chunks of the picture. There’s simply too much to know, and not enough time in the day to follow it all.
But it seems to me that in order to truly counter any misinformation that may be pouring out of the media requires a good, thoughtful, lengthy presentation of the facts - and I just don’t see how that can be accomplished in the realm of picket signs. Of course, I’m always open to having my mind changed. Would you care to give an example of something you would call “misinformation”, and suggest how you would go about presenting the counterargument to that in a convincing manner? Keep in mind that if I say, for example, “We have evidence that Saddam has WMDs”, and you counter with “We have no evidence”, that’s not going to change anybody’s mind - it’s just your word against whoever else’s, and people tend not to change their minds without good reason.
Jeff
Porkchop: I don’t think Bush gives a rat’s twaddle what people outside America think of him or his war. I was mentioning the massive protests everywhere else in response to Hickory6’s assertion that the people who disagree with the war are ‘in the minority’.
ElJeffe: I am having trouble responding to your comments because we really seem to agree! (on this, anyway … I’d love to meet you in another forum! :)) another example of the difficulties of protest … we only talk about things that we disagree on !
But you asked for examples of misinformation and I will provide them. I am too busy now but will come back tomorrow to find some cites. A teaser: I am thinking of ‘propaganda,’ like soldiers bayoneting babies, and the dancing Palistinians. I can’t vouch for the ‘truth’ of these stories (on either side: I don’t know if they happened as reported, or were manufactured out of whole cloth, or something in between) but it is important to note that the big news media shows the soundbite and doesn’t show the ensuing discussion. If one were to rely on these sources for news one would have no reason not to believe them.
Another example is the massive protests held around America a few weeks ago that got almost no mainstream coverage (even here in Canada). Not covering the scale of anti-war sentiment, in America itself, is misleading to those who think that there is no opposition.
And finally, the same media’s habit of garrotting anyone who disagrees has the same effect. Bill Maher comes to mind. This tendency leads me to believe that people who have legitimate ideas are not given the chance to air them.
In sum: many protesters are trying, in what may be an ineffective or inappropriate (to you) way, to engage in a discussion. If you approach a protester and ask to chat (‘What do you mean by that slogan you have on your sign?’), s/he will quite likely be happy to respond. If s/he responds otherwise, ask another protester.
Oh, and ElJeffe - maybe we’ve found something to disagree on! as far as I know the protesters have as much right to the road as you do. Your freedom to drive your car ends where someone’s body begins
cowgirl:
For the record, I don’t think protesting is at all inappropriate - indeed, it’s one of the purest forms of expression of the First Amendment. Protest away, me laddies! (Though if you get in front of my car, the point where my car ends and your body begins may be uncomfortably coincident, if you get my drift.*) And I appreciate the notion that they’re trying to initiate a discussion, but I have an honest question for you: If, as I assume, you have experience with a picket, how many people do you find coming up to you and asking questions? And of those, do many of them seem to walk away with the seeds of a change of mind glittering in their eyes? Do you, as a protester, feel that you’re making any changes? Perhaps I’m globalizing my feelings towards protests, when the average Joe feels quite differently.
*Standard Disclaimer - I would, of course, never try to injure a protester with my car. If I want to run someone down, there are far more annoying targets to go after. That, and paint jobs are expensive.
Jeff
I’d like a cite for that - I know a few protesters around here had the usual forgettable placards, but I’m not aware of widespread massive protests. That could be because it wasn’t reported, or it could be because the ‘massive’ protests were maybe dozen people holding up signs and shouting stuff along a busy street in most places.
Bill Maher? He got ‘garrotted’ not because of some media conspiracy but because he said that US troops were cowards right after 9/11. His words got reported, and people in general were pissed off at him. DESPITE what seemed to me to be a media campaign to protect one of their own, people stopped watching his show and started complaining to its advertisers, and no ad revenue means no show. How, exactly, did the media “garrotte” him?
Both of these are good examples of finding excuses for defeat instead of obstacles to eventual victory. Your whole mindset is wrong; if you’re just going to complain about how ‘The Man is keeping me down’ instead of working out how to get around whichever The Man is in your way, you’re not going to go anywhere. Furthermore, doing things like telling people ‘oh, we had big support, but no one reported on it’ without any evidence (I haven’t seen if you have it yet) might make you feel better, but it’s not very likely to convince people that your position is right.
You don’t convince other people to change their minds by saying “I believe this. Put your cards on the table if you want me to change my mind,” and the approval numbers show that the war has popular support. Given that your agreement is not needed for the war to happen, asking people to secure your agreement just isn’t going to work.
cowgirl:
Here’s that cite you asked for.
<<In broad principle, 64 percent support U.S. action to oust Saddam Hussein, about the same as it was six weeks ago. But if Iraq interferes with the inspectors, support for U.S. military action jumps, to 79 percent in this ABCNEWS poll.
By the same token, if Iraq does cooperate with the U.N. inspectors, far fewer — 55 percent (down 11 points since late September, albeit still a majority) favor continued U.S. efforts to remove Saddam from power. As noted, 75 percent don’t expect Iraqi cooperation.>>
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/iraq_poll_021118.html
It is possible to datamine, of course, and slice the question many different ways.
Support for the war drops if we assume that the UN opposes the war, the U.S. acts alone, and US casualties number in the tens of thousands.
Each of these assumptions are unwarranted. The first because the U.S. already has the U.N. resolutions it needs. The second because the U.S. will NOT be acting alone. The third because there is no way to know a priori what U.S. casualties will be. The decision HAS to be made without that knowledge.
To do otherwise–and even to suggest via engineered polls-- that it can be done, is akin to Will Rogers’ investment advice: “Buy stocks that will go up! If they don’t go up, don’t buy 'em.”
It ain’t that easy.
As a further cite, I will point you to the results of the 2002 elections.
<<They are more concerned with engaging open-minded or undecided people.>>
Who says I’m not open-minded? I am VERY open to cogent arguments why invading would be counterproductive to U.S. interests. And the jury’s still out on that. Earlier in this thread I posed several questions about U.S. policy that I would like to see the answers to from the Bush Administration.
There is a case to be made for caution. But that’s not the message I get from the decidedly UN-cautious, college-sophomore rhetoric I’m getting from the protester crowd.
Innuendo about Bush’s connection to “Big Oil” and corporate America don’t cut it, because they are quite irrelevant. Bush’s motivations have no bearing on whether confronting Iraq is the correct policy, any more than Bush’s bowel movements. The case has to be made based on the policy itself and its likely effects, and the likely effects of alternative policies.
Time and again, we see protesters oppose Bush’s policy but without offering a viable alternative, other than the status quo.
Well, we’ve got 17 UN resolutions already, and a helluva lot of tortured, raped, brutalized, terrorized, and murdered Iraqis, that suggest the status quo is unacceptable, too.
Also, the antiwar crowd is committing a fundamental fallacy.
They are misrepresenting the alternatives. We are not faced with a choice between a risky confrontational policy with Iraq and a risk-free course of action of doing nothing. Doing nothing is risky, too.
By doing nothing, we are making the following bets:
1.) Saddam will not develop WMDs.
Sorry, but given that we've already FOUND WMDs in his posession, and he has already used them against his neigbors and against civilians, our chances of winning that bet are precisely zero. Saddam has ALREADY developed WMDs.
Which brings us to the next bet:
2.) Saddam will not develop a nuclear weapon.
Don’t like those odds, either. He has already detonated a dirty bomb as far back as 1987 or so. Plus, if it’s clear that the U.S. is NOT going to stop him from developing a nuke, then Saddam, assuming he makes decisions rationally, theoretically MUST develop nukes, since he has nothing to lose by so doing, yet can gain immeasurably in power and prestige by developing even two nuclear weapons. If he develops two nuclear weapons, he is free to roll over Kuwait again, and threaten Riyadh and Tel Aviv with nuclear destruction if the U.S. comes to kick him out again. He can also disappear one, and have it reappear in a mushroom cloud in a U.S. or U.K. port or city. Even the threat of so doing will severely constrict U.S. options. Saddam has just inoculated his regime his regime from invasion, and is able to blackmail the whole world.
To do nothing, or to “let the inspections run their course” is a gamble that that will not come to pass. What assurances do we have that Iraq is NOT going to develop a nuclear weapon (or bio weapon)? And is that risk a gamble we can afford to lose?
What is the antiwar case that we should accept that risk? Why is it our best interests to accept that risk?
Is the downside risk–the worst reasonable case scenario–less with the status quo than with pursuing a policy of regime change? Why?
What’s the best case? Arguably, the best case scenario is that Saddam Hussein flees Iraq for a villa in the south of France with a few hundred million in cash, or he is deposed and/or killed by his own people–perhaps by his army, which cannot relish the prospect another pummeling --this time total destruction–at the hands of the U.S.
Which policy is more likely to result in that best-case scenario? I would suggest that the policy most likely to bring that about is a confrontational policy.
No one yet has tried to argue with me that that’s not the case. Can I be talked out of it? Sure.
But no one seems to be trying.
Hickory,
I do think some people are trying, but I also think Americans have become incredibly jaded. We are exposed to so much stuff that’s attempting to persuade us or coerce us into behaving particular ways - and so much of that stuff later collapses.
I’ve been thinking about this since I first saw this thread, and I’m not sure what could convince Joe Farmer of anything particular about international politics - it’s all just so remote from our everyday lives.
Cowgirl,
I’m curious - you mentioned “here in Canada” so I assume you are Canadian. In that case, why do you think Americans should care what you think about them?
<<I do think some people are trying, but I also think Americans have become incredibly jaded. We are exposed to so much stuff that’s attempting to persuade us or coerce us into behaving particular ways - and so much of that stuff later collapses.>>
Sure, but that’s a double edged sword. There are certainly people within the Bush Administration, and elsewhere, who are trying very hard to persuade us to back a war with Iraq. And so far, they’ve succeeded.
The principle of inertia applies in politics–it’s much harder, politically, to change a policy, than it is to leave it in place, all things being equal.
Bush has changed our policy re: Iraq from doing nothing beyond enforcing the No Fly Zone to active confrontation.
He’s picked up most of the electorate with it. The American people have, by and large, been persuaded.
<<I think anyone who feels that the peacenik crowd is NOT in the minority in this country really needs to put down their latte, leave their Greenwich Village coffee house , or get off their college campus, and get out more.>>
So why is it that the hawks were able to carry the day in the marketplace of ideas, and the doves have thus far been ineffective?
Well, I would suggest that in part, it is because the American people have rejected conspiracy theory (It’s all about Bush’s oil croneys), and have rejected the kind of moral relativism and lack of historical perspective that leads lefties to say things like “This is no different than Hitler invading Poland.”
The American people have also rejected such patent falsities as the argument that “there’s no evidence that Iraq has WMDs.” We’ve already found lots of chemical ordnance, and we have the town of Halabja.
The American people have rejected the argument --almost always made unsupported–that the war is “racist.” (i.e., “1, 2, 3, 4, We don’t want your racist war!”)
Yet the antiwar left has allowed itself to become associated with these long-since lost arguments, and continue to cling to them when it’s already clear that they’re ineffective.
It’s time for the antiwar left to grow up.
The antiwar left must make the case:
If we leave Saddam in power, how will we deal with him in five years if he should overrun Kuwait again, this time WITH nuclear weapons?
And why is risking that scenario preferable to ruling it out now?
And how do the citizens of Tel Aviv, Riyadh, and the other candidates for the “City Most Likely To Get Nuked by Saddam Hussein” feel about it? Can you explain your reasoning to them?
I’m listening. But I have yet to hear a realistic alternative course of action from the left, other than leaving Hussein in power and hoping he’s a nice boy.
Here’s what doves frequently don’t get:
Hope is not a course of action.
Here’s a good example of peacenik stupidity:
No rational discussion of US policy. No alternative course of action. No analysis. Nothing useful at all. Just a bunch of boneheads pulling a cheap publicity stunt–kind of like the failed advertising campaigns of the Internet age. Companies with lots of name recognition but no viable business plan.
The Bush Administration couldn’t ask for better press.
These people aren’t helping you publicize the anti-war message. They are discrediting it.