reason why the antiwar movement did not catch on in US

[epicstruggle]

source:cnn

A Jordanian journalist carries a picture likening President Bush to Adolf Hitler in a protest over the death of an Al Jazeera reporter in coalition airstrikes in Baghdad

I see that around the world people have protested this war to free the people of Iraq, and to free the world of the WMDs that it has. But many here in the US have discarded most of the arguments solely because of the fringe elements of the antiwar movement.

Case and point the above picture. Can you really say that President Bush is just like adolf hitler.
lets look at some facts:
hitler: over 8 million civilians killed (if my history lessons have not been forgotten.)
Bush: may be a total of less than 1000 civilians killed after all conflict finished.

hitler:world domination
Bush:liberation of people of Iraq, and destruction of their WMDs

Yeah, their both the same right. This is some of the reasons why the peace movement has not really worked here in the US. The peace movement has embrace a fringe element that is very *insert crazy-like word here* to grow their numbers.
Here are other stupid reasons against the war:

-well the US has WMDs too.
-the US just wants to kill muslims
-its all about the oil
-the US is evil and must be put in its place


As I write this I see on the tube, a crowd cheering the Coalition troops in Iraq. Looks like the crowds of Iraq will be speaking soon, hope your news outlets carry how much the people of Iraq are enjoying their lives as saddams regime is crumbleling. I doubt youll see it as most of these news outlets in other countries will not show it.

later,

 

[nutball]

The anti-war brigade are still at it over here. There's a march organised by the Stop The War campaign for April 12th! With a good luck and a following wind the war will be over by then, so that could be a very interesting march!

There's one members of the Labour party calling for Blair to be indicted fo war crimes. It takes all sorts I guess.

I seriously do wonder which planet these people live on :?

 

[DemoCoder]

From the looks of what is going on in Iraq now, Iraqis may be pissed in the future about people trying to interfere with the US liberation, like Afghanis were pissed with Al-Qaeda getting involved with the civil war between Taliban and the north. There may be some definate divisions in relations with the rest of the Arab World's complicity in keeping Saddam.

You have Syrians, Egyptians, Jordians, Saudis, entering Iraq and prolonging the fight. I doubt most Iraqis want their "help" anymore than they want the help of the antiwar movement.

From the US point of view, it's great that the most extreme, violent, hateful people are sacrificing themselves to the US military. It gets them out of the way and out of the countries they inhabit. Send all the worlds zealots to Iraq to be chewed up like the Pakistani jihadis were when they volunteered to go assist the Taliban, flocked across the border, and got chewed up.

It's better to have terrorists throw themselves at tanks in the desert than have them stay in their own state planning attacks on civilians.

 

[epicstruggle]

nutball, I think there are many valid reasons against the war. I just wish people would use the more reasonable/sane reasons for the war. I also wish we had a better debate about it.

valid reasons against the war IMHO:
-how much will it cost, and is that too much.
-will it cause an islamic rage
-can the kurds, shiates, sunniy live in peace
-can the turkes be kept in check (in regards to the kurds in iraq)
-can target strikes (assasinations) against the leadership cause iraq to crumble without a war

these are just some arguments the antiwar movement could have used to more effect. I at least would have listened to what they said if these were their main arguments. Too bad, they werent.

later,

 

[DemoCoder]

Also, please take away France's veto. Weak countries who have a history of surrender should not be made responsible for world security. India is a better choice.

 

[nutball]

these are just some arguments the antiwar movement could have used to more effect. I at least would have listened to what they said if these were their main arguments. Too bad, they werent.

I agree 100% with that. This is my fundamental problem with the anti-war brigade, their reasoning isn't straight. I have my doubts about the war, which I've expressed here, but "No War. Ever." just doesn't sit with me as a defensible position.

India is a better choice.

Tell that to Pakistan!

 

[Fred]

I kinda want to track down some of the quotes and predictions by some of the vocal antiwar members on this board from a few months ago. And proudly throw it back in their faces.

Things such as...
War for oil! No WMDs! War is going to be extremely grueling with huge loss of life for civilians and Americans! Going to last an eternity like Vietnam! Iraqis won't be happy that Coalition forces liberate them. Etc etc.

While some of these are still debatable (eg potential WMD hits still under scientific scrutiny and skepticism), a lot of credibility from the rest of the highly dubious arguments is fading (fast I must admit).

Ask yourselves this if you threw around these quotes and rhetoric, and were proven wrong thereafter. Perhaps next time you'll learn to have the intellectual grace to NOT be an activist about things which you are not an expert in. Arm chair analysis, internet chat and opinions are fine, violent demonstrations and protests otoh can be dangerous when performed by the uninformed.

 

[Deepak]

India is a better choice.

At last I heard an intelligent voice....

 

[Snyder]

nutball, I think there are many valid reasons against the war. I just wish people would use the more reasonable/sane reasons for the war. I also wish we had a better debate about it.

valid reasons against the war IMHO:
-how much will it cost, and is that too much.
-will it cause an islamic rage
-can the kurds, shiates, sunniy live in peace
-can the turkes be kept in check (in regards to the kurds in iraq)
-can target strikes (assasinations) against the leadership cause iraq to crumble without a war

these are just some arguments the antiwar movement could have used to more effect. I at least would have listened to what they said if these were their main arguments. Too bad, they werent.

I'd add the following argument to the aforementioned:
-are the 1000+ civilians killed in this war really worth it?

 

[RussSchultz]

Where the 10's of thousands that Saddam killed worth keeping him in power?

 

[Snyder]

So two evils make one right, yes? Or: A lesser evil is good if it is to defeat the greater evil?

 

[pascal]

War for oil! No WMDs! War is going to be extremely grueling with huge loss of life for civilians and Americans! Going to last an eternity like Vietnam! Iraqis won't be happy that Coalition forces liberate them. Etc etc.

-As you said the WMD we have to wait and see.
-The oil we have to wait too. Dont say that oil is not a pressure point and real concern. Lets see it in a few years.
-The casualities are not as high as it could have been.
-This war looks like will be faster than many predicted.
-About Iraqis IMHO a mixed feeling will be there, some people will lost their relatives or people they know. Some problems may happen during the reconstruction of the country.
- About the middle east we have to wait and see too.
- About the international relations damage we have to wait too http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1683253

About the demonstrations I think there was some large and civil demonstrations in Europe. Violent protests are really a shame.

 

[RussSchultz]

So two evils make one right, yes? Or: A lesser evil is good if it is to defeat the greater evil?

I'd say its quite clearly the lesser of two evils.

It angers me to a degree I'm suprised at (Usually, I'm pretty passive/nonchalant about most everything) the duplicity of the world.

All these stupid f'kin muslim clerics claiming that "war on any muslim is a war on all muslims because we're all brothers and everybody is equally as important" just piss me off. Where was their righteous indignation for the past 20 years? Why do these jackasses stick up for heinous people using religion as the reason, when these heinous people are so completely against the tenets of that religion?

And then people like you throw up a few thousand deaths (and yes, I wish Saddam had just stepped down and those thousand didn't have to die) and try to use it as an excuse or an indictment as to how wrong it is to interfere.

Life is all fine and dandy in my part of the world and your part of the world, but it aint there, and it aint in many parts of the world.

Call me a pax americana lover/warmonger, but the world has remained silent for way too long and allowed Rwanda, Iraq, Zimbabwe, etc continue for way too long. I blame the US for this also.

I'm not suggesting conquering the world, but I do think the US should stand up and fill its moral shoes. The whole world should. We should cast off ties with dictators like the Saudi's, the Kuwaiti's, etc. and deal only with democratic/representative countries. We should make our displeasure known to all despotic regimes, through no uncertain terms: No economic or military aid given to any of those governments of countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. (direct humanitarian aid not withstanding). And yes, in extreme cases, use our military might to enact a change.

Or, you could sit pretty in your (generally) lily white ivory towers and let those darkies suffer, since you'd prefer not to dirty your hands.

 

[nutball]

I'd add the following argument to the aforementioned:
-are the 1000+ civilians killed in this war really worth it?

That's not for you or I to judge. Ask the Iraqi people. Go on, ask them.

 

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

I'm not suggesting conquering the world, but I do think the US should stand up and fill its moral shoes. The whole world should. We should cast off ties with dictators like the Saudi's, the Kuwaiti's, etc. and deal only with democratic/representative countries. We should make our displeasure known to all despotic regimes, through no uncertain terms: No economic or military aid given to any of those governments of countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt. (direct humanitarian aid not withstanding). And yes, in extreme cases, use our military might to enact a change.

Or, you could sit pretty in your (generally) lily white ivory towers and let those darkies suffer, since you'd prefer not to dirty your hands.

Thank you Russ, thank you.

What I ponder is how can one exercise moral captialism. I guess you have to set a moral standard then allow free growth under that standard. Unfortunately this is not yet the case. It seems the US is not willing to act in any moral confrontaion with loss of life if its only gain is a moral one.

 

[zidane1strife]

Perhaps next time you'll learn to have the intellectual grace to NOT be an activist about things which you are not an expert in.

Well, I was one who opposed the war... true I'm no expert, but lets face it the enemy that was presented before us by the media, and by the gov. in order to justify the war.... wasn't the enemy that was really out there.

I mean, they painted a ruthless dictator with possibly hundreds if not thousands of bio-weap. missiles/ or other delivery mechanisms... One who would resort to anything to stay in power, who had killed even his own.... One who'd vowed to annihilate the irakis the day he was gone... One who in the not too far future would pose a significant threat to the world...

What we really got was an old f@rt with a pathetic military with crumbling morale... with few or nearly no wmds... It was a joke, a complete and utter joke.

True it was costly, all those helicopters damaged, all those bombs, those troops, those supplies, etc... but at the end it was worth it, to liberate the people(particularly those in the camps.).

At the end I think the US exaggerated the threat that saddam posed in order to start the war, and I REALLY doubt they did this with the intention to help the people(that was just a side-effect, although in reality it was the best that came out of all of this.). I'd say it was done probably to stabilize a region, to have a presence there, and other economical reasons...

 

[RussSchultz]

Eh? Even without the chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, he (was) still a ruthless dictator.

I'd trade my entire military to put all of them out of business.

 

[Natoma]

Well said zidane1strife.

Russ: And I agree with you. I believe the ends are definitely noble and worthy. It's the *means* that I'm at odds with.

 

[Sxotty]

Also, please take away France's veto. Weak countries who have a history of surrender should not be made responsible for world security. India is a better choice.

actuall considering indias population, they do have more right than france.

 

[zidane1strife]

he (was) still a ruthless dictator.

Indeed a ruthless dictator, but the image I got from the media was of a pre-hitlerish guy... That although he might not have the armies or military power to pose a threat. Through terrorism and bio/chem weaps. He'd be a global threat in the not so distant future...

The reality is... he was/is a ruthless old geezer, with little to no real power with a regimen that we could easily take care of.