Clearly no rational person would have gotten us into this unholy shitstorm in the first place. Is demonstrating against irrational behavior irrational in itself ?
From Sam Stone
Well, I can’t claim any deep insites into the anti-war movement. My sister is part of it, here in the states, but basically she protested the war mainly because she feels war is bad. Its as simple as that. The circumstances don’t matter to her at all…ANY war, reguardless is bad. Most of her friends think the same way. I have no idea if they are representative of the anti-war ‘movement’ or not to be honest. I’ve HEARD no real platform from the anti-war movement, either now, before or during the war.
For your points:
-
I think there ARE folks that want this (my sister and her crowd certainly do), but I think that the more rational anti-war folks realize this would only make the situation worse.
-
Again, there are folks claiming this, but I don’t think this is a major issue. I’ve heard nothing serious about wide spread abuses by allied troops in Iraq, though in any conflict there will always be some…war tends to bring out the worst in us, as a species.
-
This is probably the key point, if any, that I’ve heard. There is wide spread belief that if only the US would put itself totally under UN control in Iraq (and in other things as well), that everything would turn out fine. I fail to see how this would come about, even IF the US would do such a thing. To me, at this time, its a moot point…no only won’t the US under this administration even consider such a thing, I don’t see how it would help in any case. However, the anti-war crowd DOES, and it IS a debatable point.
From Sam Stone
I think you are wrong, in broad terms. Certainly there is an element that IS fundamentally irrational (like my sister and her crowd). They don’t want to hear logic or reason…they want the US out, and out right now. NO MORE WAR!! They want Bush’s head on a pike, etc etc.
However, there is ALSO a very reasoned element of the anti-war crowd (I’ve seen many of them on this board), and I think THEY want answers instead. They want to know why we went in, since its obvious it wasn’t about WMD. They are suspicious of many of the gift contracts that were awarded no compete…and are curious about the association with the most powerful of those companies with high level members of the administration.
They want to know what our plans are. How do we get to step A? How do we get from step A to step B? They have no faith in the administration, and frankly think that the administration really HAS no such plan, nor contingencies for when plan a goes tits up. To be honest, I’m somewhat in agreement with this position…I’d like to know what the plan is, in broad terms…how we get to step A, etc etc. I don’t see this as unreasonable.
Thats what I think their positions are. But I’ll be honest about something else. If I didn’t come on this board and see some very rational folks laying out reasoned arguements in support of the anti-war positions, I would really have even a more vague idea of what they were about. Unfortunately, at this stage, the foaming and frothing at the mouth guys are getting all the press. And I think THAT is what joe citizen sees. And THAT is a shame, IMO.
-XT
Those who do not concede the errors of history are doomed to repeat them. The security of the world is threatened when the leader of the most powerful nation on earth starts invading countries on false pretenses, then refuses to acknowledge their falsity when called on his lies. That way lies madness.
Who’s next? And what’s to stop him?
Sure, they’re just anti-war. They march against war all the time.
Who can forget the huge marches against the Soviets when they invaded Afghanistan?
Who can forget the huge demonstrations against French military adventurism in Africa?
And don’t forget those huge marches against Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. And the large European protests against the Arab nations when they attacked Israel.
And of course, the massive, worldwide demonstrations against the Russian war in Chechnya.
Oh, wait… There were no protests against any of those.
Shouldn’t be long at all before we hear stuff like “well, that’s old news, time to move on and confront the really important issues like gay marriage and the Pledge. Sure, mistakes were made, but look at that boyish face! You know his heart was in the right place, he just couldn’t withstand the piteous cries of the Iraqi people, pleading for help…”
I wouldn’t say that all protestors are irrational loons but it has been my observation of protests (in general) that there is always a certain percentage of crackpots.
If I had to take a SWAG at it I would break down the protestors into 5 categories:
10% - ideological anti-war protestors (Quakers etc…)
20% - “do-gooders” who don’t look to the future (can’t plan their own financial affairs, let alone take care of a cat).
10% - isolationists
40% - anti-Capitalist loons who live for WTO meetings.
20% - politically motivated protestors.
Sam, it strikes me that your claim of hypocrisy (that the current anti-war protesters did not march against the Soviets or French or Iraq or Arabs or Russians) exactly matches my perception that the Bush Doctrine (whatever it is) is hypocritical.
After all, if we did the “right thing” in toppling Saddam - not because of WMD or because terrorists were using Iraq as a base of operations, but because he was genocidal and oppressive - then why don’t we intervene all over the world where there are genocidal or oppressive regimes? Why haven’t we driven the Chinese out of Tibet? Why didn’t we protect the East Timorese? Why haven’t we quashed the government in Myanmar? And those are only the few that come immediately to mind…
I don’t for a minute believe that we invaded Iraq because America is now the guardian of right and the protector of the oppressed around the world. As I’ve said before, I pray that Bush really believed Iraq was a threat (WMD and terrorist base and all that). But I actually think it had more to do with our strategic economic interests than anything else.
And I don’t think an administration like that should be re-elected.
So, I don’t protest the war - that, in itself, is probably counter-productive at this point. We’re in there and we should do something honorable about it.
But I do object to the President and his administration, and I plan to work to elect someone else next year.
Yeah, people should spend more time protesting against actions that are neither being carried out nor aided and abetted by their own democratically-elected governments and instead just protest things that totalitarian governments are doing and that their government is already in agreement with them in opposing. Yeah, that sounds like a good way to spend one’s time! [And, it’s just horrible how these democracies get held to a higher standard than those totalitarian dictatorships!] :rolleyes:
(I’ll admit, your examples of France and Chechnya don’t really fit in this. Well, Chechnya is kind of on a fuzzy border…The Russians are getting some Western acquiescence. Of course, some of us expressed a lot of concern about the fact that the Russians immediately jumped on the Bush Doctrine on terrorism and started using it to justify their actions in Chechnya.)
An excellent point in my opinion! I think the way to prevent future bad things from happening is to make people aware of the mistakes of the past. In fact, some of us right here on this very message board in the time just before the Iraq invasion were arguing that Bush had already proven his word could not be trusted on the basis of his many lies and deceits on domestic issues! Unfortunately, public awareness of all of these deceits seemed to be pretty low. (Of course, even some of us were surprised about just how far the truth about WMDs seems to have broken toward one side … I personally sort of guessed that since neither of the principle actors involved had a shred of credibility, the truth might lie about halfway in the middle [e.g., the WMDs were there but they were less extensive and less of an imminent threat than Bush was making them out to be]. Needless to say, I seem to have been wrong.)
And, finally, as for what I (not being a protester but being sympathetic with them to a certain degree) want, RTFirefly really said it so well that I have little further to add.
I want this war not to have happened. I want every war not to have happened, but this one in particular involved an act of agression perpetrated by my nation, and I am responsible for acting against what I consider to be a great wrong committed by my own government. This war was in my name, and it was wrong, and that is not all right by me.
Although I can’t change history, I’m not going to sit around and pretend like I am okay with what happened. I’m not. It was wrong. It will never settle well with me. I hope that protests can at the least encourage people to think critically about their government next time around. They also act as a lasting sign that not everyone supports this. I’d hate for average Joe to be convinced that there is no opposition, no other way to think. We will face more Iraqs, probably in the near future. Finally, there is a small chance that protests can expose the lies that got us into this war, inspire someone to 'fess up and maybe affect elections.
This just in…
“G.O.P. to Run an Ad for Bush on Terror Issue”
It doesn’t get really nauseating until the last graf…
"…With somber strings playing in the background, the commercial flashes the words “Strong and Principled Leadership” before cutting to Mr. Bush standing before members of Congress. Intended to call out the Democrats for their opposition to Mr. Bush’s military strategy of pre-emptively striking those who pose threats to the nation, the screen flashes “Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others,” then urges viewers to tell Congress “to support the president’s policy of pre-emptive self defense.” "
(emphasis added with gaping dismay)
The torture never stops…
Good point, even sven.
One of the points of protesting this war, and not letting the lies fade from memory, is that doing so might help prevent future wars of a similar nature.
Just wait till he invades Poland, elucidator.
Lord, don’t start giving them ideas!
You know, now that I think about it, I really wonder if they’ll have the raw chutzpah to actually run that ad…
Ya think?
OK, you guys, but what would you change? You want the way not to have hapened. You want future wars no to happen. But what system, law, practice, or tradition would you put in place to bring this about? You want answers from Bush. You want admisions of liying. OK, but what would you do to impose these desires on future administrations?
I think the anti war protests are simply an example of a “my turn” mentality amongst the radical left. They all want to relive the sixties and see this as a chance to do so. In an odd way it is similar to the attitude which young men used to express about war. Namely that a particular conflict was “their turn” to prove their devotion to the nation.
I happen to think that toppling Saddam was a good thing to do. However, I disagree with the way the war in Iraq and Afgahnistan were prosecuted. Neither action sought a formal declaration of war. Neither case threatened formal war either. Bush Sr. coined the phrase “New World Order” when the Soviet Union fell. (If we ignore the conspiracy nuts for a moment) I think we missed a great opportunity to turn the first gulf war into a better world order. It was an opportunity to redefine war as only legitimate when done as a response to such an action by another nation. Certainly this was the stated aims of the first gulf war (responding to agression). However, we failed to set up a workable structure for agreeing on such action in the future.
We sank farther from that goal with the actions in Iraq and Afgahnistan. Not because those actions were unjustifiable, but because they were not formally justified. Not even by America’s own internal procedures for doing so.
When the most powerful leader of the most powerful country in the world lies to the citizens of that country and to the representatives of most nations on the face or the earth, ignores their wishes, fails to plan adequately for an illegal occupation, encourages the very terrorism that he claims he is going to eradicate, loses more troops than were lost in the first three years of Vietnam and fails to take responsibility for his mistakes and shortsightedness, it behooves any citizen of the earth who thinks this isn’t the best we can do – to protest mightily.
I think the one thing all the anti-war protesters want (and can agree as a common goal) is for George W. Bush to wake up and get a clue. E.g., stop the unilateralist bullshit and the lying, and realize that a sizable chunk of the planet is onto his games.
And by the way, I find it amusing to read the resident Bushistas trying to dismiss the protesters as clueless rabble – since the odds are damn good the protesters have a better grasp of events than they do. 
I can only speak for myself.
I am a pacifist. I know the problems inherent in pacifism. I know that it is an impossible ideal. This world is a dirty, messy place and I don’t think humanity will ever know peace.
But I still feel like I need to stand for peace. I will not kill anyone today. I did not kill anyone yesterday. In fact, I have gone through every day of my life without killing anybody.
If everyone did this simple thing- get through the day without killing anyone- we’d have peace. I know they won’t do this. But that is their problem. That is the world they are creating. But I refuse to take part in that. I refuse to say that it is ever a good thing. And if my silence is being interpreted as support, I will speak out.
I will not run the world. I will most likely not change the world. But I can keep the integrety of my deepest beliefs. And I can be one of those people that tend the flames of an ideal so that hopefully it stays alive- and serves as a reminder of what exactly it is we are striving for- even as everyone else is duking it out.
Sam
I can vouch for this, to an extent. I marched in the ‘Send Bush Home’ demonstrations yesterday and there were definately some people who were marching purely due to an emotional, visceral loathing of the big guy. One protestor I spoke to managed to fit in anti Bush, anti-Blair, anti-Sharon, anti-Berlusconi and anti-GM crops slogans onto a single placard. While I was impressed with his economising of space and language it was pretty clear he was something of a kneejerker.
However, there were a vast amount of genuine protestors there who’s consciences simply couldn’t allow them to stay at home and watch TV while a man they considered to be a tangible threat to world security was enjoying tea and scones with our Head of State. They were, objectively speaking, in the great majority and many of the ones I spoke to were well aware of the relevant facts surrounding recent events and what they would like to see changed.
I think the majority would favour a US retreat replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. As to whose soldiers carried out the task, it doesn’t really matter. The point of a withdrawal would be to help dispel charges of unilateralism and fears of American hegemonic ambitions impeding the recovery of the area. That would be accomplished by handing over control of the operation to the UN which would help dispel worries that certain “special interests” (namely those of Bush’s corporate puppeteers) would have a damaging effect on Iraq’s recovery. It seems to me to be somewhat commonsensical that the terrorist groups in Iraq are preying on such fears to recruit suicide attackers. It may (although I wouldn’t go so far as to say it definately would) take one weapon from their rhetorical arsenal. Needless to say that this would relieve the US of a substantial financial burden and while I don’t pretend to be an expert when it comes to economics history is quite clear that what’s good for the US economy is good for the world economy.
Brutus
While you may be content to masturbate gleefully to your own perceived moral superiority while Iraq burns I would appreciate it if you didn’t impugn those fighting for changes to help clear up the mess your tin idols created. Thanks.
Admirably clear agenda, RTFirefly, and one many would agree with. Unfortunately, I saw none of these concerns reflected on the streets or in the policies of the ‘Stop the war Coalition’, but that might be because I didn’t see any policies at all save for them wanting more cycle lanes, a Palestine Now, etc.
I’m sure the Iraqi people - on whose backs this whole protesting debacle was borne - will look forward to safer cycling around Baghdad.
I did also get an additional clue yesterday when the BBC started reporting it wasn’t actually a ‘Stop the war’ demo (isn’t it a bit late for that, anyway) but it had become an 'anti-Bush’ demo, instead. Quite what he has against cycle lanes I’m not sure but I’m champing at the bit to join this exciting new movement; Again, a total absence of clarity or agenda.
Never in the history of demonstrating have I seen such a self-serving, agenda-hijacking, unfocused rabble as this shower. I’m embarrassed to share the political spectrum with them.
The slogan should read: ‘We can use the Iraqi people (for our own self-serving agenda) just as well as can George Bush. Peace. Man’
It’s hardly surprising he and Blair are getting away with all this given the way the opposing team is playing.
Wankers.