I have grown increasingly irritated and saddened this week as the war kicks off. Why does every single person feel the need to spew their gobshite as if their opinion is the only damn opinion?
I listened to various phone-in shows on BBC Radio Five Live, which is by no means a lowest common denominator broadcaster. I felt insulted by those members of the public who claimed that anti-war protestors were a tiny minority of fools, where the “vast majority” were, and had always been, right behind the conduct of the war.
Today, watching television news, I was further patronised by anti-war protestors marching through London. When asked whether the lower turn-out meant support for the war was on the rise, those interviewed claimed that, if anything, public support for their position was on the rise.
Both sides are characterising the others as idiots. Both sides believe that they have this vast, unnamed majority behind them, but cannot prove it. Both sides misrepresent the others’ arguments (“These anti-war protestors are happy to support a mass-murderer!” vs “These pro-war types are imperialist lackeys for the US!”). Both sides twist facts to suit their agendas (“Fewer marchers means more people support the war!” vs “Where are all of the pro-war protests then?”).
None of you speak for me. I do not know if I am in any “majority”, but I doubt that these vocal elements on either side really have a clue what “the majority” thinks.
I expect war to polarise opinion. I am not surprised that heightened passions lead to unreasonable statements. I do not, however, like becoming some statistical pawn used to prove a point, and I am not a number to be counted to support either of your agendas.
Sorry if this is a lame rant, but I just wanted to get it off my chest.
Everyone thinks they’re right, when in actuality, we’re all wrong.
On this one, I’ll sit back and let the people of Iraq decide whether they think the war is just. I think that they’re more involved than any one of us.
Well, when both sides say that the majority agrees with them, only one side can be right. The latest numbers show that a sizeable majority of US citizens support the war, so the anti-war folks don’t really have a leg to stand on this point.
I would have responded to this thread sooner, but I kept reading the title as “None of you speak to me,” and I figured the least I could do was respect your wishes.
Again, I must say this. Polls are bullshit. IMO, America is too diverse, and far too wierd, to able to ask 1000 people questions and extrapolate and think you can accurately tell what ‘americans’ are thinking.
Using poll numbers like that is wrong. Governing by poll numbers is wrong. If I wanted to contol America, I wouldn’t overthrow the government. I would take over the pollsters.
Ah yes, the sound of Sunday mornings; London_Calling barking up the wrong tree …
I don’t even understand what ‘anti-war’ means. If they mean ‘anti-removing Saddam in the present geo-political climate’, then I think we have something to work with (in terms of a viable position).
But the bullshit of a movement as ill-defined (in order to maximise support and blur the agenda’s of the various factions into an indefinable mass) as the ‘anti-war’ movement drives me do-lally – how the fuck is anyone supposed to take them seriously when they dilute the message to a nonsensical slogan and have no agenda save “We don’t want war” There is nothing to take seriously, no constructive agenda – it’s the intellectual equivalent of the hippy shit guy in ‘The Young Ones’, 'Peace mannnnnn.
Ye gads, I’ve seen some oafish political judgements in this Iraqi malarkey, but that’s a corker.
And I know I speak for you all when I say ‘Fucking half-witted, dirty hippy numbskulls’ woof woof
I have to agree with Spooje. Too often, those poll questions are framed as strict “yes/no” and ignore those who abstain.
This is NOT a yes/no question, and a lot of people (I feel, with the caveat I could certainly be wrong) are adrift between full support and full opposition. We don’t have all the information here, we aren’t going to until afterwards (if then).
For myself, I feel we’ve arrived at a situation where there are no good answers, just a series of choices in varying degrees of evil-to-bad. Which is the least bad alternative? And now that we’ve actually rolled into Iraq, what is the best (or least bad) next course of action.
I suppose some would view that as “pro-war”, and some as “anti-war”. I think that’s trying to give a simple answer to what is really a complex problem: how to deal with a sadistic killer in a potential firekeg of a world region.
I’m a bit sick of hearing from expatriated Americans living in Ireland offering their opinions and having it hailed as, “See, this American agrees with us and not them!!”
There were a nu,ber of callers on our local (Canadian) radio shows the other day and they too were purporting that they were speaking for all Canadians.