So I’ll try and keep this out of the Pit. The whole anti-war movement, as far as I can tell, was aimed at fomenting enough protest to cause Bush to back down – because those involved are against the US aggression because it would bring death and destruction to the innocent people of Iraq; protesters protested because they had the best interests of innocent Iraqis, and maybe even US troops, in mind.
Maybe if the war had gone on longer, or the protest movements had been larger, it would have done something to stop the war. But fact is, they did nothing to dissuade Bush, and the vast civil disobedience world wide was, empirically, a great big communal waste of time – as it did not stop or slow the war.
Which is where the debate comes in. Wouldn’t protestors’ time have been better spent actually doing something productive such as organizing blood drives for Iraqi civilians, fundraising walks for aid, making sure everyone knew where to mail money or goods for the Iraqi people to, or doing other, actually productive activities? Or did the mass civil disobedience really serve a concrete purpose? What was the point of Mr. Hollywood sharing his anti-war views when he could’ve been donating millions, or helping get the word out about how to concretely get innocents aid?
In a nutshell, would Joe Protestor have done more for his cause participating in the mass rallies, or politely going door-to-door asking for donations to help the innocents of Iraq, and offering to take any blankets, clothes, or other aid for packing and shipping to Iraq? Certainly, no protestor could have known that the protests would be ignored by the US administration, but even on the eve of war – where would time have been pragmatically better spent? Since protesting is an all or nothing risk, was the time lost protesting really worth all that could’ve been gained trying to provide real help for Iraqi civilians?
I’m not sure what you mean by “all or nothing risk”. Many, if not most of the anti-war protesters had firmly held beliefs that the war was wrong. I would not begrudge them any peaceful protests, and if they wanted to raise money to help inocent Iraqis, it seem like they could’ve done that in addition to the protests. Perhaps that could’ve been part of the actual protests.
As noted in another thread, there is activity in congress to authorize funds for this purpose.
I’ve got a lot of issues with the anti-war movement. Under normal circumstances, my inclination would have been to join in but I thought this time the whole concept was hopelessly flawed.
I’d start with the fundamental premise they assumed (here, at least) of making the anti-war campaign as broad a church as possible – that was wrong, IMHO. By making the message / slogan over simplistically ‘anti-war’ (to appeal to all) it also meant there was no coherent goal; banners at marches ranged from anti-nuclear, through pro-Palestinian to anti-Bush and anti-US. Absolutely fucking hopeless if the ideas is to engineer a little leverage on a particular political event – every Herbert with any kind of ‘not on message’ agenda tagged along, some dating from the damn ‘50’s for goodness sake.
Going for numbers rather than a clear, unambiguous, ‘bulleted’ agenda meant the protests didn’t carry anything like as much weight as they should have – and besides, the numbers would have come anyway ! That’s the sad part.
And it also meant that so-called ‘spokespeople’ carried not only different emphases’ but also different messages … God help us … an incoherent babble of woolly (mammoth – hi ‘luci) agenda’s .
There was nothing politicians need to address on point so they were able to just babbled ’ / squirm away unaffected.
For the anti-war crowd to give up the protests and go on charity drives to handle the ravages of war was to submit defeat. They were trying to stop the war or end it. The whole point of the protests, as I see it, was to voice public opinion and show that large numbers of people felt the way they did. The hope is that it would gain momentum and rally further support. I agree that it was a foregone conclusion and that the administration intended to invade no matter what, but I respect the protesters for what they did. It has contributed a great deal to the global perception of the war - which is to say that everyone in the world understands that there are millions upon millions around the world that think the US invasion of Iraq is wrong if not insane.
IMHO the war was driven by corrupt motives and wasn’t in any sense justified. I personally didn’t join the protests as I feel that the problem is rooted in the very form of government that breeds this sort of crap and also feel mere protesting to be futile. However, I do support the protesters in principle. I also think that any charitable efforts to help the victims are equally futile. The fundamental source of the insanity that creates victims needs to be addressed.
“Anti-war” did not and does not mean “against this or any war forever”, in the same way that “pro-war” does not mean “in favour of all wars since the beginning of time”.
The main gripe amongst those who demonstrated was the myopic rush to war when there was a perfectly viable option of waiting for Hans Blix’s team to complete its work during which earnest, patient and capable diplomacy was employed in order to garner support for military action in the UN and perhaps even some begrudgung respect in the Arab world.
That the diplomatic efforts were so lazy and incompetent risked, in many people’s minds, the possibility that the invasion might do more long-term harm than good due to dangerous new precedents regarding when a country might decide to invade another, and the alienation of the Arab world.
“No war never” was not the cry. “We support Saddam” was not the cry.
Unfortunately, “The legitimacy of this war is extremely dubious and might cause more terrorism than it prevents” is more difficult to paint on a sandwich board than eg. “Stop the War”.
That’s odd Mr Meat, because an awful lot of the middle-class liberals I came into contact with (and who marched) were – when pressed – actually far more concerned about the lack of consultation within their democratic process than they were with events apropos Iraq.
What motivated these family groups to push the buggy for peace was that they were irked. They hadn’t been listened too, they were discontented about the democratic checks and balances bulging at the seams … it was’ Hey, what I think is supposed to matter’ stuff.
Now, that’s an issue (for another day) but it don’t win you leverage when the chips are down.
But like I said in my first post, the ‘anti-war alliance was a ‘rainbow’ of all manner of pet interests, self-interests and muddle-headed, incoherent ‘feed the world’ simplistic shite. IMHO, of course.
I have been a fervent protestor of this war and it has nothing to do with being a saddam fan or for that matter even being particularly concerned about Iraqi Citizenry though that has been a concern.
I protest this war because of the lies and disinformation. This administration has destroyed my faith in the morality of this country. Since when is it the policy of the US to pre-emptively attack anyone? We fought a cold war for 30 years where our main concern was the russians using a “pre-emptive” attack to degrade our ability to respond. We grew up hearing about the evil expansionist communist state, that would take over other countries if the US was not there to defend them. Now Russia is not the threat it used to be and so now Bush and his moronic team of assclowns, has turned this country into the very thing we fought against for so long.
They have gutted our constitutional rights, and taken away our say in the course of our nation.
How anyone can support an administration that has so consistently lied to us and been found out on so many occasions as to be an international joke.
Not one piece of evidence or assertion has turned out to be verifiable in this war. No weapons have been found (though Bush and his team claimed to have bulletproof sources that they could not “safely divulge” without compromising their sources. Well supposedly the Iraq war is essentially over. Don’t tell me about searching for hidden caches and possible tips. I want to see the proof that was claimed as a pretext for this war. Obviously this war has put the lie to the claim that Iraq was a danger to the US or any of its neighbors. H0w can anyone call themselves americans and not demand accountability from this administration?
They have also lied about the progress of this war. Even now they have offered no explanation of why the Iraqi forces simply stopped fighting and disappeared. We didn’t defeat them. They simply didn’t show. Estimates are that no more than 5% of the Iraqi armed forces were degraded in the course of this whole war. So where are they? Was a deal made? Whats with all the noise suddenly over Syria? Why the saber rattling at them when the Russians have been found to have been supplying Intel as well as probable haven for saddam’s men. Are we going to be threatening them next?
Bush has turned our foreign policy completly on its ear and has ruined decades of respect and co-operation world wide yet has offered no cogent reasons for these moves.
Personally I used to think that Bush was just an evil power hungry lunatic. I have since begun to realize that in truth he is just barely clever enough to hide the fact that he is severly retarded and is simply being pushed around by some egotistical fools like rumsfeld and cheney.
I hope we get ourselves a “regime change” as soon as possible while we still have some semblence of a country we can be proud of.
Bush has made it difficult for any american to say “I am an american” and actually have something to feel proud of in that statement. The way things are now I feel more like saying, “I am an american…sorry.”
I’m not sure I catch your point, sir. Your primary gripe seems to me to be that those opposed to the Iraq invasion were numb-skulled because their arguments weren’t aligned. Per that reasoning the pro-Iraq invasion crowd are equally fucked-in-the-head with their gamut of reasons ranging from weapons of mass destruction to UN resolutions to Iraqi liberation. The pro-war crowd fully embodied the “simplistic shite” concept and I’m sure you recognize that. If you could clarify your point of view that might help.
As for people being irked that their democratic contribution to the scenario was bypassed, I think that is a valid grievance. Do you think it is all sweet and dandy to have corrupt politicians run rampant with their varying neuroses and psychoses? The issue does run deeper to the fact that neither America nor Britain are actually democracies (despite the bullshit spewed by the suits) and that pisses people off when it comes to a head - and an issue such as this will usually bring matters to a head.
The protestors’ need to pump up every left-wing (for lack of a better word) cause did make the anti-war message a lot weaker for many of us watching. “Stop your racist war” just doesn’t resonate with me. I guess it could’ve been worse: “Stop your racist, sexist, homophobic, captialistic, patriarcal, misogynistic, war”.
“I hope we get ourselves a “regime change” as soon as possible”
Well, there’s only one date that this can happen, and it’ll be election day in 2004. Perhaps things will change between now and then (it sure did for W’s dad in a similar situation), but from what I’ve seen Bush has about a 70% approval rating right now.
For the fervent anti-was crowd, nothing will make a difference in terms of how the war turns out. For the vast majority in the middle, the fact that the war has gone much better than many feared, will only make Bush look better in the polls. Of course, there is still a LOT of time between now and the next election day.
I think that the anti-war movements can also do humanitarian acts at the same time.
But humanitarian acts should not be a substitute for demonstrations and marches against the war on Iraq by the US/UK partnership.
If a conscientious person believes that someone is going to be victimized by an assailant, it is not enough that he be ready to bring the victim to the hospital; it is also of utmost relevancy to his conscience that he strenuously voices his objections to the assailant, trying to convince the assailant that there is no just cause for the latter’s assault of the victim.
On the allegation that the anti-war movements lack focus, I firmly insist that as a matter of fact, they are very clear and precise in their one main essential objective, namely: that the US/UK partnership do not start shooting and bombing Iraq.
Over and above everything else, that is the objective of the anti-war movements: don’t go into Iraq with horrific and massive fire power.
If that objective is not clear and precise from the part of the anti-war movements advocates and participants, then tell me what are the clear and precise and consistent and evidentiable objectives of the US/UK partnership in launching war on Iraq.
Susma Rio Sep
The left-wing versus right-wing polarization is becoming very trite. The constant characterization of economic principals having a bearing on the issue of invading a sovereign nation is ridiculous. Such a matter is a human rights issue which is applicable to humans, not conservatives or democrats. Twits like Rush Limbaugh try to cloud such issues with political debate so as to herd the sheep in behind their agendas. Politics becomes completely irrelevant when people begin to lose limbs and lives.
As for the “anti-war message” and you watching it on television, I would suggest that you read a little history and compare it to the raw facts of current affairs and stop waiting for CNN coverage to formulate your arguments for you.
Susma: The message was muddled on both sides, if that makes the anti-war folks feel better. Rather than saying “you did it, too” a better tactic would be to take the muddled message by the Bush administration and use that as an advantage.
I thought the anti-war folks did do a great job of coordinating world wide protests. Can’t remember the exact day, but there were some pretty sizeable protests in major cities throught the world on one day back in Feb, I think. I don’t know how many people changed their mind because of this (esp in the US), but it was impressive nonetheless.
lander2k2 - The point is clear to me; If you insist on running a campaign (the amorphous ‘anti-war’ in this case) specifically designed to appeal to the maximum number of potential protestors, it blunts your ability to make political progress. Lesson learned, one hopes.
Look at how any political party operates; ‘on-message’, the ‘party line’, etc; You set a clear, very simple to grasp agenda with achievable goals and you establish a pathway to those goals - you don’t create a beast with ten heads and have it all talking at once about different things.
When the sergeant major shouted ‘Quick march’, this lot marched off in ten different (political) directions all at once. Politically it was no opponent at all.
Can anyone tell me how much trouble to Bush and Blair the biggest popular protest in modern times – any damn times caused ? Did it affect their agenda, even timescale, one jot ? I’ll hazard the answer is ‘Nope’.
You surely can’t defend that as being a good campaign ? I mean, the ‘anti-war’ movement lost huge leads in the opinion polls to George Bush for goodness sake; the not-so-great-communicator / speaker of the English language with Exxon up his arse, operating outside the UN, with the shabbiest of collations and the most obvious of false pre-texts. You want to defend that campaign ?
Why not analyse the huge mistakes and strive to not lose such a damn significant lead next time.
I think that’s looking at the term too narrowly. Even Colin Powell at one point tried to make the case that Saddam changing his behavior would constitute “regime change” - and that was the overarching goal of the protest movement, to get Bush to change his behavior. They served as a reminder that We the People are supreme, and less directly as a reminder to those who hold office that we can fire them for insubordination.
London, count me among those who fail to understand your argument that the protesters should have redirected their energies because of the futility of trying to get listened to by this particular president or by this particular PM. That misdirects the blame away from those officeholders, for one thing, and for another does not address the question of what else politically the pro could have done under the circumstances other than simply acquiesce to it.
To try and keep this from becoming just another Hippies vs. Hawks thread, try and keep the OP in mind. As noble as the protesting might’ve been, in reality it did squat. Any protestors regret not actually doing some of the beneficial ideas mentioned in the OP?
Bingo. This is what it all boils down to for many (though certainly not all) protesters. Changing the course of the Bush administration through protest was always a shaky proposition, and there passed a point after which it was clear that protests weren’t going to accomplish anything concrete - yet still you saw protests. Heck, the war started, after which pulling out the troops would cause more harm than leaving them there, yet you still saw protests. Why? I would wager that in the majority of the cases, it wasn’t because the protesters expected anything to happen, but because they wanted to feel good about themselves. The protests became giant, sloppy bouts of self-affirmation. Certainly, there were some (sadly deluded) souls who believed that they were going to make a difference, but I htink most of them just wanted piece of mind.
Jeff