Ehrm, H4E, how does this in anyway refer to the OP?
What a wonderful sermon,btw.
Boils down to:" shut up and do what your government tells you to. It’s in the Bible, you know"
This one was pretty funny:
Well, at least Beagle will be pleased to note that the fundies aren’t part of this Stalinist peace movement.
Thanks for the heads-up, but I’ve some very important red-hot needles that I have to stick into my eyes just at present, so I’ll take a rain-check. 
A vocal minority may be protesting the war, but the majority of Americans (6 out of 10) says they are not ready for war without a UN resolution. Yet the very same Americans give Bush an overall thumbs-up. So there’s simply no evidence that personal animosity towards Bush is the driving force behind dissent from this specific policy on war on Iraq. (see “Millions” thread for link to poll)
Similar, in Britain, only 10% of Britons will support the war without a UN resolution, and the majority don’t want it under any circumstances. Yet Blair comes from a different kind of background, and is a Labour Party PM. So there’s not much evidence for your thesis in Britain either.
Speaking for myself, I’m pretty far left-leaning on most issues, including war. With respect to Yugoslavia I read left arguments for and against intervention and I ended up feeling I wasn’t sure enough of the circumstances to have an informed opinion. On Afghanistan I ultimately felt that war was justifiable if regrettable (had I been in power I would have wanted to try other methods of pursuing AlQaeda; but I didn’t condemn the war nevertheless; and I was glad to see the Taliban ousted.) If this were 1939 I’d also have no problem seeing the need for war.
But when it comes to this war, at this moment, I think it’s patently obvious why so many people are confused and/or dead-set against:
I could go on but is there any need? What other recent war was predicated on such tenuous grounds?
Hey, maybe it’s just that a lot of people find the justifications given by the Bush administration for pre-emptive war to be inadequate and morally repugnat. I mean, that’s what a lot of posters are sayiong over and over in this forum. People are protesting Bush because officials that he appointed are the ones beating the war drums the loudest. Seems simple enough to me.
BTW, when my mother, who no one would consider a liberal, calls me up and starts bitching about how the country is turning into some kind of police state, you know that there’s something wrong here.
With that out of the way, I’ve gotta take exception to some of the OP’s hyperbole:
So, the OP’s position is that the US had no reason whatsoever to take part in World War II, other than to make some fats cats richer. Right, got it.
Pardon me, but which ‘boys’ over at ExxonMobil are talking about here? The hundreds of thousaonds of employees? The probably even larger number of stockholders? Please, someone name a name or two, 'cause it sure sounds like a straw man is being hoisted up for burning here.
All of them. You cleverly laid out the anti-war points. But, consider the other side. [ul][li]Saddam is a monster and his regime is evil. Our war in the former Yugoslavia was opposing an evil leader, but I think Saddam has him beat. Our wars (or support for war) in Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada and The Falklands had to make do without a legitimate demon – merely an enemy.[]Iraq is unquestionably in violation of many UN resolutions, unlike Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada and The Falklands.[]Iraq certainly has chemical and biological weapons – weapons that the civilized world has agreed to not develop and use, unlike you know who.[/ul]These points may not justify war, but they show that the grounds are less tenuous than for other recent wars.[/li]
Even the war with Afghanistan had somewhat tenuous grounds. They complained that al Qaeda was the enemy, but we were fighting the Taliban. Also the the Taliban did not have WMDs and they were not in violation of 17 UN Security Council resolutions.
Saddam is a monster, but, alas, he isn’t unique in that regard. I think there is a strong humanitarian argument to made for ousting Saddam–but there are peaceful ways to go about doing that. More important, the Bush administration hasn’t got much of a record of humanitarian concern (and neither, for that matter, did the Clinton administration). Yes, if the Bush administration were, say, tying their trade policies in China to human rights, if they were urging Israel and Palestine to come to a humane resolution, I might begin to see them as arbiters for worldwide humanity. (I’d also be more convinced if their position on third world women were tied to human rights instead of scoring points with anti-choicers here at home, but that’s another story.) All in all, humanitarianism is just a transparent facade for the Bush administration; and it’s increasingly sounding that way for Tony Blair, even though he is, on the whole, the more able rhetorician. (I thought his recent address to protesters was particularly lame and moralistic, as though he thought were the living spirit of Gladstone.) People, I think, are very good at spotting insincerity.
Yes Iraq has been in violation of UN resolutions–but there is a plan in action for dealing with that and while it may lead to war it hasn’t yet (in the view of key allies and huge segments of the world public).
Same thing goes for chemical and biological weapons.
As for Nicaragua, et.al. Here you are using contested and arguably regrettable examples of US foreign policy to justify yet another contested and arguably regrettable policy. I recall a great deal of dissent surrounding Nicaragua and Grenada. I’m not quite sure if dissent over Panama was so vociferous as I was pretty young during these events. But I don’t think that any of these were cases during which the kinds of people now organizing protests were sitting on the sidelines cheering on Reagan.
Finally, Afghanistan. Yes, as I said originally, there were people who disagreed with war in Afghanistan and I sort of agreed with them but ultimately there was a lot to be said on both sides. The Taliban were clearly in partnership with AlQaeda, the world could see that. It boils down to that.
Yeah, what Aspidistra said:
With this contemplated action, our nation undoes 95% of the progress of the 20th century towards an international understanding that nations do not get to attack other nations except in defense or in defense of a 3rd party victim. And we instantly become the aggressor-nation that the other nations of the world have nightmares about. An America-as-last-superpower isn’t particularly scary if America is occasionally running around the globe playing World’s Policeman, and otherwise mostly content to sit back and dominate the planet economically. Morphing into the World’s Storm Trooper changes everything dramatically.
Who the fuck appointed him Darth Vader anyhow?
Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O’Connor, that’s who.
Since you were talking to a lot of people’s violent opposition to this particular war, I felt it pertained to the subject. I thought Stanley had some excellent answers as to why war is sometimes necessary.
Can we just be clear here that “violent opposition” is just a metaphor, right? I think what’s really meant is something like “vehement opposition”–unprecedented in scale, broad-based, profound, etc. No?
Yes, ‘excellent’ answers to the question: “Is war sometimes necessary?”
But the question was:“Why is there such strong opposition to this particular war?”
I do not mean my argument to justify the war (although I support it). I’m just responding to the OP’s question and your theory that war with Iraq has unusually tenuous grounds.
I think one reason why this war is getting people so agitated is that there’s been so much time to get agitated. Bush has been pressing the war ever since Labor Day of last year.
Compare with the timing of Afghanistan war. The build-up and the basic victory were complete in a shorter time period than was just the build up for Iraq.
I agree with you december, the long build-up has giving people the chance to reflect on the tenuousness. But it’s in the nature of what’s being asked. The US is seeking UN approval not least because that’s what the US public wants. Since that’s going to take time, there will also be time for people to reflect, and there will be a lot more open debate than there has been in the past. All to the good as I see it, though I guess there we differ.
"Why the violent opposition to this particular war?"
I wouldn’t call the opposition “violent” but the scale of the protests has been staggering in it’s scope. The protesters have been fairly well behaved and it would be hypocritical to protest against violence with more violence.
If there’s a man who needs killing it’s Sadam Hussein, I say killing because I find it very unlikely that he will surrender and turn himself over to the authorities. I surmise that the Vatican envoy probably made Sadam an offer of sanctuary if he would step down from power and prevent the inevitable should he insist on attempting to retain power. I believe that the only way Hussein will be removed is through the use of force and this is a very sad thought indeed.
People opposing this pending action know that in order to get to Hussein you have to go through a great number of innocent people who have already suffered more than anyone should. The cost in human life will be immense.
There are people protesting because they do not want to see the deaths of innocents, or because they believe that the war is more about economics than justice, or because they disapprove of America’s politics, or… (add your own reason here).
When you put all of these people together that makes for a great number of protesters.
When I see protesters making simplistic statements about “war for oil”, “racism”, or personal attacks against Bush, I have to question how “educated” their opinion is.
Fair enough. When I see war supporters condoning war with simplistic statements like “Saddam is bad” or “Iraq is going to nuke Washington”, I have to question their ability to form their own opinion at all, or if letting politicians form their opinions for them is good enough.
When I see protests, I often wonder how much of it is opposition to the idea in question or how much of it is a longing for the 60’s.
This argument would hold water if there were similarly-sized demonstrations against Gulf War I, Kosovo, or Afghanistan.
There weren’t.